There is nothing new here - despite the attempt to wrap this crap in pseudo-scientific genetic talk.

Only a lamestream journalist would call psychiatric theories "science", or psychiatrists "scientists".

It's really a low point in terms of logical argument - "we don't have to articulate a secular morality, because it's obvious."

This from the same "experts" handing out "Dating for Chimps" advice, and trying to convince us that "it's only natural not to be faithful to your spouse".

Look around you. How do these "natural adaptations" explain a world in which selfishness, dishonesty, and oppression are the rule? If it's genetic - or obvious - why haven't many more societies reached the same conclusions that the West has?

Neither the "need for attachment" or any of these other human drives necessarily leads to morality - the "ability to understand other people's thoughts" is more often used to lie or manipulate.

Keep trying, "freethinkers"....

You are coasting - enjoying freedom and respect that come to you directly - and only - from the residue of Judiasm in Western culture.

The morality of human worth and free, democratic societies is "obvious" only where Judaism and Christianity have first laid the following foundation:

Monotheism ->
humans created in image of God ->
transcendent human "soul"
"inalienable rights"
Monotheism ->
incorruptible moral authority ->
human conscience and responsibility

The "obvious" and "universal" morality of free societies appears only after these assumptions are part of a society's fabric - and when they are forgotten (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) the society sinks back into pagan inequality and oppression.

... Keep swinging, slinging, and swearing - NONE of you has articulated a morality that leads to the free, just society you are enjoying without referencing Judaism. And you never will.

I think morality based on one own free will
is more superior than one that is based from any religion or any god.
In other words, religions or gods do not have monopoly on morality.
Civilisation or culture that aspire for a free and just society will also naturally aspire for a morally superior society, with or without religions.

WLIL, many religions espouse free will. Christianity is one. SO htat morality is exactly what you describe.

People claim religion is the source of morality, but the authors write about the research by Yale psych prof Paul Bloom and his team, finding that infants in their first year of life show signs of an innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad, fair and unfair.

This would explain why we believe moral truths. It would not explain how we would be correct in doing so. Indeed, this doesn't explain moral truths so much as it explains them away.

Of course, the Jews invented God. And then God invented goyim. Someone had to pay retail.

I can put up with just about any god-focused religion but I can't stomach orange jews. Too hasidic.

Ba-dum-ba!

Religion is a very useful construct. If you understand religion as a reflection and outgrowth of the societies that practice them you can easily identify morally and socially bankrupt cultures, such as the Arab culture.

I am not a religious person, but sometimes I wish that I was. The chief benefit of having religious views, that I observe in my relatives and friends, is that it makes it much easier for them to let things go, and get over them, especially things that they have no control over. This of course only applies to people who are not kooks or fanatics. Fanatics channel their faith into agression agaist any opposing views. You can also find many secular examples of fanaticism, so I have to conclde that people can make darn near any belief into an obsession.

The morality of human worth and free, democratic societies is "obvious" only where Judaism and Christianity have first laid the following foundation:

Monotheism -> Jews werent monothiestic

humans created in image of God -> Judaism/Chrisitnity are not the only relgions to claim this
transcendent human "soul" Judaism/Chrisitnity are not the only relgions to claim this
"inalienable rights" Such as?
Monotheism -> Jews werent monothiestic

incorruptible moral authority -> A moral authority which not only approved of but enven encouraged rape, salvery, and genocide
human conscience and responsibility -> Judaism/Chrisitnity are not the only relgions to claim this

Want to try again, again? Or will you just fade away like the last two times you tried this converation

@Ben David: I'll reiterate what you never responded to in another such comment thread on this blog: Ayn Rand developed a full-fledged morality that has no need for supernaturalism of any kind.

"God" is an unnecessary, human-created construct.

News of the tautalogical: God is in Man's Genes therefore man made God, but what if God made man's Genes to recognize Him?

I am continually amazed at biologists lack of grounding in basic logic, much less philosophy. They think they're so clever but never ever do their homework. It's all so tedious.

Physicists, having to think mathematically are much better logicians. Biologists are just guys who are good at memorizing lists of parts.

And it shows.

Gee, B-D, you're exactly right. Because nobody in history prospered before the Jews/Christians.

Or since.

Right?

C.S. Lewis used this same idea to argue that there was a God. If every person had an innate sense of fairness and unfairness, there must have been an original creator to put it there. Otherwise, where did it come from?

NONE of you has articulated a morality that leads to the free, just society you are enjoying without referencing Judaism. And you never will.

As I posted the last time you spouted off about this, the Ancient Greeks enjoyed freedom, democracy, rights, and a just society ... all without reference to Judaism.

It came from self preservation

Working together you can build something that is more than the sum of its parts.

In a society that has no rules aginst theft nothing can be aquired that can not be taken away

As mankind evoled beyond the thougt processes of other animals and gaind the ability to plan for a future beyond a few months we also had to develop safeguards aginst theft and murder.

Yes in a large enough population such actions go one all the time, but when our species first started ot such mercenary behivor would have lead to the death of smaller bands.

After all why work when you can steal the fruits of others labor? But continue on that path long enough and noone will produce anything, resulting in death.

Groups which worked together florished and those who did not survived at the margins.

There is no sky fairy - just simple cause and effect

I grew up in a devout Southern Baptist family, but I was never able to fully embrace the idea of religion. Church always just managed to terrify me and make me feel guilty for not really believing and for never getting "saved." In college, I decided I was agnostic. That went over really well with the family.

Then my Dad got sick just over 6 years ago, and I clung to the idea of a God. A divine entity that could cure all and make Dad healthy again despite the prognosis. I prayed with my family and begged and pleaded with God to heal my father, but it clearly wasn't working. I wondered if I wasn't praying hard enough, often enough, wasn't getting it right. Maybe my lack of belief earlier made me unworthy of having my prayers heard. And I felt guilty if a few hours passed and I hadn't sent up another message to the almighty.

When Dad died, I just kept hearing over and over again that it was "God's will." This divine being that loves us all so very much actually wanted my father to die a slow, miserable, and excruciatingly painful death. It was God's plan to devastate my mother and put the family through such misery. And my prayers couldn't change his/her mind? WTF? It worked for other people, right?

After a while, I was able to recognize my brief return to religion for the act of desperation it was. I don't have to feel guilty for my ineffective prayers, because no one was ever there to listen anyway. Life happens. Death happens. No all-powerful being is pulling the strings. It honestly felt like a huge burden had been lifted from my shoulders to come to that realization. Now I consider myself an atheist and happily so.

I feel sorry for so many here who feel so compelled to deny another human's beliefs. How pathetic really to think you are so intellecually superior to your fellow man because they have a belief system that you do not.

I go back and forth on whether or not I believe in a higher power.
-----------

Ben David, you are talking of current conditions in much of the world resting on a particular religious foundation. Sure. But was Buddha a bad person? Are his followers without moral values? Indeed, are not those values basically the same if different in particulars?

And our religions, including Judaism, have changed particulars over the years. Read the First Commandment (as given in two books, ignore Leviticus). The interpretation of that one has certainly changed from the original literal reading! Or, how about it was OK to have slaves - even fellow Israelites, as long as they were of a different tribe. Or a favorite, Onan - condemned because he refused to make his sister-in-law pregnant? On and on...

I feel sorry for so many here who feel so compelled to deny another human's beliefs. How pathetic really to think you are so intellecually superior to your fellow man because they have a belief system that you do not. -- ronc at July 20, 2011 5:54 PM

I don't think any of us who regularly comment here will randomly just jump on any poster here for their religious beliefs.

We may not agree with them, but we will ask them to back up their beliefs with facts.

As luj commented, she has asked BD for his response several times to the same question. Responding with "I feel" deserves all the derision that can be laid upon it.

You have to remember that BD rejects homosexuality as a genetic trait. I have never questioned him on his belief on addictive behavior, but that also has genetic tendencies. The same with being genetically resistant to HIV/AIDS.

But there are facts out there.

I respect those who are quietly faithful. But once you post your statements in a forum -- you are open to be asked for a response.

Seriously, do I come across as a woman? or was that a typo. Its not that I am offended or anything, and I realse that you cant tell sex from my handel, but I thought it was fairly well esablished that I am a guy

Also

I feel sorry for so many here who feel so compelled to deny another human's beliefs. How pathetic really to think you are so intellecually superior to your fellow man because they have a belief system that you do not.
Posted by: ronc

As opposed to you denying our belief? Or how pathetic it is to beleive that you have a special personal relstionship with the creator of all reality? And opposed to feeling moraly superior to all of us who will be roasting in hell for all eternity for not haveing the same beleif system as you?

Jim, by It's very nature, faith cannot be proven, thus "faith". BTW, I am a fan of no organized religion, as I find hypocrisy in most of their leaders

"I feel sorry for so many here who feel so compelled to deny another human's beliefs. How pathetic really to think you are so intellecually superior to your fellow man because they have a belief system that you do not."

This would be wonderfully put - being directionless - except for the assumption that superiority cannot be demonstrated.

One of the many fascinations I have with Adherents.com stems from the observation of more than one religion claiming exclusivity. Even as mankind cannot agree on who, what, when or how to worship, they maintain a kind of endearing certainty that their way is "best" - while not noticing that all of them can be wrong, not just "the other guys".

And observe the irony of faith: the fact that faith is not possible about a situation known well.

Seriously, do I come across as a woman? or was that a typo. Its not that I am offended or anything, and I realse that you cant tell sex from my handel, but I thought it was fairly well esablished that I am a guy.

Sorry luj for not paying attention. But regardless of sex -- has BD answered the Q?

Jim, by It's very nature, faith cannot be proven, thus "faith". BTW, I am a fan of no organized religion, as I find hypocrisy in most of their leaders -- ronc at July 20, 2011 8:33 PM

Then you are in the same boat as BD. The equivalent of "Faith" is "I believe" or "I feel". Can you refute the arguments that are posted here as the originating blog posts?

What about the ability to support the arguments that BD put forth?

I would quite widely support a superior being. But when you can start answering questions like this:

What does God need with a starship?

Then I may might make the choice. But for now you are backing up the question of faith with by It's very nature, faith cannot be proven,. Then if it cannot be proven, how do you classify it: original assumption? Belief in your overlord? Some benevolent deity that liked seeing his kid hung up for a bunch of hours suffering?

How is that any different than "Only a lamestream journalist would call psychiatric theories "science", or psychiatrists "scientists"." as an attack on the science they are presenting? I again will gladly accept it if you can break the theory and the proof.

I'm still asking "What does God need with a starship?"

I'm going to close this with a classic quote from Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

> How do these "natural adaptations" explain
> a world in which selfishness, dishonesty,
> and oppression are the rule?

Human nature sucks. Has your system of belief left you unclear on this matter? I coulda sworn you had a chapter or two that covered this.

> enjoying freedom and respect that come
> to you directly - and only - from the
> residue of Judiasm

Trans-cosmically wrong, breathtakingly self-centered, grotesquely pathetic. And you bungled the spelling.

> NONE of you has articulated a morality that
> leads to the free, just society you are
> enjoying without referencing Judaism.
> And you never will.

[A.] If you really feel that way, stay home and do your nails; fate will deliver us to the insight you describe without your participation. (But here you are, getting all pissypants-defensive about it.)

[B.] Human culture is built on graveyards of stupidity. Language has plenty of examples that predate the foolishness of modern religions, including Judaica. Consider consider.

[C.] What exactly does "articulated a morality" mean, anyway?

> I can't stomach orange jews. Too hasidic.

Fucker.

And by the way, is there any culture other than "human culture"? Sorry; my bad.

Thanks to the many thin-skinned "freethinkers" whose tolerance doesn't extend to religious believers, and couldn't contain themselves. In thread-posting order:

I won't bother refuting lujlp, whose opening gambit is the whopper lie that:

Jews werent monothiestic

It just gets more silly from there...

Radwaste tries with:

Gee, B-D, you're exactly right. Because nobody in history prospered before the Jews/Christians.

So you measure morality by the selfish value of getting ahead.... I'm sure ancient slave-owners "prospered", as did well-connected Soviet apparatchiks - is that really your moral yardstick?

The rest of us are discussing the underpinnings of free society and human dignity.

Conan has a selective memory:

As I posted the last time you spouted off about this, the Ancient Greeks enjoyed freedom, democracy, rights, and a just society ... all without reference to Judaism.

And on that thread I pointed out that the "freedom, democracy, and rights" of the Greeks extended to a handful of wealthy male slave-owning oligarchs, who had no notion that slaves, women, infants, or foreigners were fundamentally equal to them as humans. Nice try, though...

JohnA engages thoughtfully with:

Ben David, you are talking of current conditions in much of the world resting on a particular religious foundation. Sure. But was Buddha a bad person? Are his followers without moral values? Indeed, are not those values basically the same if different in particulars?

Buddhism preaches passivity in the face of evil. Did Buddhism lead areas it influenced to develop a notion of transcendent individual human worth? No - these concepts came to the East with Western colonialism.

Is karma/payback really the same as belief in justice/conscience? Not really: when you look closely, Buddhism is amoral - which feeds the idea of passivity.

(I've already addressed your comments on Biblical slavery on other threads: basically the written Law of Moses sets a direction (initial restrictions on slavery and concubinage) and the Rabbinic law continues that path as human society progresses. By the Roman era polygamy and slavery were almost unheard of in Judea, which refused to return fugitive slaves to her neighbors in the Roman Empire.)

JimP blithely puts words in my mouth - like most pro-gay folks, not concerned with reality:

You have to remember that BD rejects homosexuality as a genetic trait.

Meanwhile the APA and other medical societies are carefully walking back their earlier flower-power pronouncements, as it becomes clear that homosexuality is NOT genetic or biologically determined.

Regarding the general dithering about "whether BD has answered/received an answer to" his question" - let's restate the question:

I am not trying to prove faith. I am scientifically trained, and clearly distinguish things known from things I personally intuit and believe.

We are discussing morality - which, despite heaps of leftie pseudo-science and media BS, is not reducible to scientific determination or subject to rational inquiry.

So:
Western "freethinkers" who put all their faith in post-Enlightenment rational inquiry - must explain how their Brave New Worldview generates the freedom, respect, and democracy that they still DO value - and enjoy.

It doesn't.

They are enjoying a society that springs only from uniquely Judeo-Christian values - which in turn grow from uniquely Jewish religious beliefs.

The rationalist frame of reference leads us to neo-pagan inequality and oppression - without even the possibility of appeal to principle.

That's my challenge - and the response, over several threads, has been warmed-over atheist talking points and sophomoric attacks on "religious people". Or backhanded admissions by folks like Crid and Rad that they really don't have a deep understanding of the roots of democracy, or much of a moral compass...

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

It's "demonstrandum" for those of us who really had Latin in school, and you haven't proven anything. (Not for lack of trying.)

You're silly little guy, and getting sillier...

Or can you cite one of these "backhanded admissions"?

Because —and Golly, I'd hate to think how we could have been clearer about this over the years— we're not that impressed with your compass, either... It so often seems to be pointing at teh gays.

A few things Ben David, I never said the jews arent monothiestic - I said they werent, as in past tense - monothiesm always develops out of polythiesm

After all if the jews were monothiestic why did god have to go to the trouble of telling them to place him above all others in their worship?

Also, are you claiming that jewish women had suffrage before the greeks created democracy? Because as I recall they had a monarchy up until the romans rolled thru.

Also why is salvery by greeks 'bad' but slavery by jews 'good'?

And another thing, how exactly do you moral superority to the rest of the stone age when the jews carved out their empire by commiting genocide of the people who were living in the area when the jew invaded?

...the "freedom, democracy, and rights" of the Greeks extended to a handful of wealthy male slave-owning oligarchs, who had no notion that slaves, women, infants, or foreigners were fundamentally equal to them as humans.

But the wealthy male slaveholding Jewish oligarchs were enlightened?

And Jewish women were full participants in political affairs?

And every Jew, from the poorest to the richest, was a full and equal participant in the political affairs of the Kingdom of Israel?

Riiight.

Modern enlightenment was influenced by many sources ... some Judeo-Christian and some not. The Founding Fathers of the US and the French Enlightenment philosophers who influenced them were avid readers of many ancient texts.

So, no one, not even you, can say with certainty that what we consider our modern enlightenment would not exist if Judaism and its quasi- off-shoots, Christianity and Islam, were removed from the source material.

Anyone who studies ancient religions knows they changed over time with new legends and foundational mythologies cropping up and old ones changing with the times or to fill gaps in the coverage.

The ancient Greeks began moving toward a monotheistic model ... as did the ancient Egyptians.

So, it cannot be said with certainty that the idea that human beings were created in the Supreme Diety's image wouldn't have arisen as a tenet of belief in anything but a Jewish context.

Nice try, though...

"Buddhism preaches passivity in the face of evil. Did Buddhism lead areas it influenced to develop a notion of transcendent individual human worth? "

LOL now that's some goooood trollin'.

I sometimes think Ben-David is a socially liberal Wiccan just fucking with us.

Or maybe I just hope so.

> a socially liberal Wiccan just fucking
> with us.

And he gossips on his Iphone while sweatin' to the oldies with Richard Simmons.

"So you measure morality by the selfish value of getting ahead.... I'm sure ancient slave-owners "prospered", as did well-connected Soviet apparatchiks - is that really your moral yardstick?"

Well, here you go again, putting your own shit in the sandwich and then complaining about the taste.

The point is that yes, there are and have been moral societies that got along nicely - and of course the practitioners of Christian variety are and have never been sinless.

I'll let you look up the history of the world outside the Middle East, because if I do it, it'll be some indication of some character flaw you're so quick to see.

Jim P blithely puts words in my mouth - like most pro-gay folks, not concerned with reality:

You have to remember that BD rejects homosexuality as a genetic trait.

Meanwhile the APA and other medical societies are carefully walking back their earlier flower-power pronouncements, as it becomes clear that homosexuality is NOT genetic or biologically determined.

I would like to see where this is happening? Can you please show me the studies that you are referring to?

Granted that many time I'm referencing a website like this:
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/genetics/Genetics_of_Alcoholism.htm

But you can dig a little and get to things like this:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/13556210412331327821/abstract
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009308402001603

But when you look at studies like this it comes out at about 35% genetic.
www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/

And yet you have homosexuality in many other species.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

But in a way that is not germane to the conversation at hand. I do want to apologize for taking the post off-topic.

It still comes back to how what is moral in your culture at the time. There will always be a chunk of moral relativism in any culture.

Having Liberty entails that you have your your right to your opinion. As a culture/society you have to agree to a base line of what is acceptable, or not. But beyond that, you have no individual right to enforce your opinion on me. That you believe in god™ or God® does not entitle you to enforce your belief on me.

If you want to enforce that on me -- I have the right to suffer under that or leave your dominion. But the founders of these United States had the right precepts: The basic human rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Religion and morality...well...here is how I see it.

Most religions in human history did possess some form of moral guidelines about what was "right" versus what was "wrong".

However the idea of the good samaritan type morality being applied across all human lines, not only to family and tribe but to every stranger everywhere, is fairly unique.

And it did not begin with secularism. It took hold with the idea of monotheism, that there is a single universal god, and a single moral law applied to all human beings.

If there is a pagan faith to which that applies, I do not know it. And locations where secularism pushed out religion and its injunctions to be a good samaritan and your brothers keeper etc...quickly turned out to have the worst human rights records in human history.

So...religion has its place, you may not believe in god, but religion definitely exists, and in some ways it has been a very effective tool to molding human morality to its greatest expanse.

Whatever moral guidelines those many religions may have, they had been known to be extremely oppressive and that is immoral.
Good people do not need religion to teach them to be good whereas bad people wil always be bad, no matter how good their religion moral guideline may be.

I wasnt aware that Moa pushed out chritianity, thanks for the religiuos history lesson, all this time I was under the impression the area was primarily buddist and toaist, thaks rob

So it's not just great minds that think alike - we have luj with:

are you claiming that jewish women had suffrage before the greeks created democracy?

Also why is salvery by greeks 'bad' but slavery by jews 'good'?

And Conan echoing with:

But the wealthy male slaveholding Jewish oligarchs were enlightened?

And Jewish women were full participants in political affairs?

In fact, Jewish women owned and inherited land and property, were protected by prenuptial agreements, and could initiate divorce proceedings - while Greek and Roman women were treated as chattel.

Similarly, the Jewish slaveholder was already ringed by Biblical and Rabbinic restrictions - including setting a slave free for physical abuse (see Exodus 21:26-27) and limits on pressing children into servitude (earlier in that chapter).

As I've explained previously - the written Torah starts the process of reforming slavery and concubinage, which is continued by Rabbinic law as humanity progresses. I never claimed that ancient Judea was a perfectly-formed democracy - which is a nice, but empty, rhetorical pose.

Greek democracy was a game played among mutually-distrustful oligarchs - it never developed in the direction that Judaism was already heading.

Greek thinkers - and society - regularly treated non-Greeks as sub-human "barbarians" - just like Hutus and Tutsis and every other pagan people, they had no notion of universal human worth or equality, because there was no monotheism - which inherently posits an underlying unity.

Ancient Jews were not exactly consistent in this alleged belief that non-Jews were equally human. Remember Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan. He used a Samaritan to explain who was the Jew's neighbor and should be loved for a reason.

The Samaritans and the Jews were mortal enemies because each claimed his Torah was the original religion of the Israelites. Each was forbidden by his leaders from having contact with the other. Josephus reports several violent incidents between Judeans and Samarians during Roman times.

The Jews did not accept any "notion of universal human worth or equality" that applied to Samarians.

Greek democracy ... never developed in the direction that Judaism was already heading. ...they had no notion of universal human worth or equality, because there was no monotheism - which inherently posits an underlying unity.

Again, as I posted before, there is no way you can say that if the Greeks had continued down the road to monotheism that they would not have developed ideas of "universal human worth or equality."

They may well have ... or they may have influenced a someone else to develop such ideas. Oh, wait. They did influence someone to develop such ideas.

Right BenDavid blame the greeks for not devolping enough politically while ALREADY HAVING DEMOCRACY and fending off the Persians, Hitties, Romans, ect

And lets adulate the political accomplishments of the Jews who thre out a complete lack of central govenment and a comunistic/democratic government on a local level for a national monarchy

Seems to me thats going backwards BenDavid. And then there was that whole debacle where Isreal split into two different kingdoms.

What kind of forward progress is it when a large section of the country just tells the rest to fuck off?

Many religion teaches something that may be good or bad for humanity but many of their religious adherents don't follow them or practiced something else that is no bettter or something worse.
And religion tend to discriminate based on different belief stories and give priority to their own tribe with similar belief system or others who were pressured to believe the same due to political agenda or economic or social presures and that is unacceptable. In many aspects, many of the religions still failed to give equal rights to nonbelievers and many religion groups still organised their religion along their own ethnic grouping or based on their own tribal belief or religious system. Even asian and middle east people from various religion grouping still haven't stop practicing various types of slavery, which is still prevalent in a more inferior eastern/nonwhite closed oppressive society.
I think it is ridiculous to depend on any god or political organisation for any advancement of human rights because any advanced civilisation that is already humane in one way or another will always naturally aspire for a more humane society, with or without religions.

"In fact, Jewish women owned and inherited land and property, were protected by prenuptial agreements, and could initiate divorce proceedings - while Greek and Roman women were treated as chattel"

By the Early Republic (5th century BC or so), Roman women owned and inherited land & property, wrote their own wills, and appeared in court as their own advocates. Pagan Etruscan & Minoan women enjoyed these rights & freedoms even earlier. If a father died without a will, Roman law required the equal division of his estate among his sons & daughters. And wills that gave daughters an unequal share could be contested in court. Roman marriage arrangements took a number of forms, some more restrictive than others. But yes, women could initiate divorce proceedings, and take their property with them.

All but the poorest Roman girls went to primary schools where they learned Latin (and sometimes Greek), reading, writing, poetry, math and geometry. If you do some research, you'll find out that many Roman commentators noted that girls were often better educated & more well-rounded than boys, because they tended to be more diligent & pay more attention to their studies, while boys tended to be more interested in gladiators, chariot races, etc. When they grew up, some of these girls found employment as scribes, calligraphers, and other trades that required learning. And records indicate that women owned & operated all manner of businesses. Note also that ambitious Roman men, from Julius Caesar on down, often spent long periods of time away from home in the far corners of the Empire. Their wives were left in charge of their estates during these times, and won much praise & appreciation for doing so.

How old are you, Ben David? Old enough to know that propping yourself up by falsely putting others down is childish? Humility is supposed to be a cardinal Judeo-Christian value, so please stop spreading nonsense all over Amy's blog, and pretending that you know how pagan Rome would have evolved if it hadn't been Christianized.

cardinal virtue...you get the point.

I seriously doubt he'll ever get the point

Conan still flogging it with:

there is no way you can say that if the Greeks had continued down the road to monotheism that they would not have developed ideas of "universal human worth or equality."

But they didn't - and nothing they've left us indicates they were developing differently than other pagan cultures.

Nor would you want to live in their society.

All that remains of the Greek legacy is the (important) idea of representational government. The rest of the West - the worth of the individual, their conscience, and their "inalienable rights" - come from Jewish roots.

(One clear inflection point was when Alexander Hamilton proposed that only landowners be allowed to vote in the new Republic - and was quickly voted down... by then Christendom had developed Jewish ideas of individual worth beyond the Greco-Roman model, to something better...)

Which brings us back to the question nobody's answered:

Having thrown over this Judeo-Christian tradition, how do you "freethinkers" justify/generate the moral fabric that leads to free, equal societies? How do you construct the moral safeguards that prevent us sliding back to pagan oligarchy - or "forward" to Stalinism?

None of you has answered this - preferring to sling general "anti-religious" mud at me, or waxing nostalgic about various Good Olde Days of oppressive paganism - regimes none of you would really want to live in...

So: how to rational atheists justify/generate a free, equal democracy without recourse to Judeo-Christian notions that are totally at odds with the observed reality of human INequality?

"Nor would you want to live in their society"

No sane commenter on this blog would want to live in Biblical Israel either, which is where we'd be without the boundless contributions the Greeks & Romans made to civilization.

"The rest of the West...come from Jewish roots"

If Greeks & Romans hadn't laid the foundations, there would be no West for Judeo-Christian ethics to act upon, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"How do you construct the moral safeguards that prevent us sliding back to pagan oligarchy - or "forward" to Stalinism?"

That reminds me that there have been quite a few Jewish Marxists. Thousands of years of Jewish heritage did not prevent them from embracing that inhuman evil and pushing it on others. If only things were as simple as you'd like them to be.

Ben, your people threw away local small scale governemnt and embraced monarchy.

That isnt exctly moving forward into freedom.

Also recall how europe ruled by christianity is refered to as the 'Dark Ages'

Were it not for secualr powers putting religion on the back burner you'd still have the inquisistion. Also please note that the rest of europe didnt pick up demorcatic form of governemnt until ater the USA.

Also note that originaly in the US only wealth landowners had the right to vote - and they had slaves.

Near as I can tell up until the 1800 no one was all that 'moral' as we like to define it to day.

Your veiw is far too simplistic, and it is quite obvious you are wholly incapable of looking at the history and religion of your people with even the smallest shred of objectivity

Without the aid, advancement and foundation from western civilization, religions would be just an empty shell that is full of stories with no moral fibre or advancement to lean upon.
Many a times it is the irreligious western civilization that came to the aid of countries that was dominated by petty fighting caused by backward religions or backward societies or backward cultures in the east.
I think religions did not improve humankind. Science, critical thinking or rational thinking and humanity based on free will had been more effective in creating a freer and more advanced society. Therefore, it would be unacceptable for any religion that try to claim credit for the advancement that originated from the western civilization.

Martin:

That reminds me that there have been quite a few Jewish Marxists. Thousands of years of Jewish heritage did not prevent them from embracing that inhuman evil and pushing it on others.

Yes that's right - did you notice that throughout this and other threads I've cited Marxism as "neo-pagan"?

Jews also have free will. Marxists Jews chose to throw over their inherited culture - that's obvious just by looking at the positions that define modern American liberalism.

Or maybe you're an antisemite who doesn't see Jews that way - who blames Judaism for everything done or said by individual Jews?

I'm perfectly happy to agree with you that both Greco-Roman and Jewish culture contributed to the modern West.

Can you - or some other "freethinker" - kindly explain how you make up the loss of Jewish ideas after throwing over traditional religious values (like those Marxist Jews)?

Ideas like:

- Intrinsic worth of the individual
- Brotherhood of humanity
- Human free will, conscience, and personal responsibility
- Justice and mercy restricting the exercise of power - as ideals, not a pragmatic strategy for wielding power.

How do you get to these without recourse to Jewish monotheism? So far nobody's answered this - it's all been attempts to deflect the question.

And if you can't frame a purely secular morality that leads to the free, equal society you are now enjoying - at least have

(a) the honesty to admit it, and
(b) the grace to be more respectful of the belief system you're coasting on, even if you no longer believe in it.

BenDavids Jewis Ideals That Noone Else Ever Thought Of EVEREVEREVER
- Intrinsic worth of the individual
So what about jewsih slavery? Stoning non vigins on their fathers doorstep? Taking the 'unused' women of slaughtered enimes as sex slaves?

- Brotherhood of humanity
Isnt it kinda hard to have a brotherhood, when you are the 'chosen' people? And when god commanded you to murder everyone living in the area when your people emerged from the desert?

- Human free will, conscience, and personal responsibility
Ever read greek mytholgy? Full of free will conscience and responsibility. Also for a while the catholic church was running on the assumption that everyone was puppets doing exactly what god made them do.

- Justice and mercy restricting the exercise of power - as ideals, not a pragmatic strategy for wielding power.
See my comments about genocide above, how is genocide merciful? Also did your god kill a bunch of jews for worsiping an idol BEFORE they even recived the commandment no to do so? How is that just?

Communism is an ideology and therefore is similar to any oppressive backward religion imposed by a more backward culture or backward society that seek to impose their harsh way of life.
I think we freethinkers or nonbelievers should not be forced to respect any belief system whether they are based on god ideology or based on communist ideology.

"I'm perfectly happy to agree with you that both Greco-Roman and Jewish culture contributed to the modern West"

Glad to hear you're no longer a member of the People's Front of Judea.

Ben-David, you're positing that none of the values we describe as "universal human rights" would exist without Judeo-Christian roots.

Inherent in your supposition is the idea that no other cultural or social construct would have laid the foundation for the development of what we know today as "human rights."

You can suppose that, but you can't say for sure. We're talking thousands of years of development.

Several ancient societies began the journey from polytheism to monotheism (Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians to name a few). Most did not complete it. Had they survived, however, they may have become monotheistic cultures. Funny how a barbarian invasion or a plague or a natural disaster can just wreck your social progress.

By the way, there's plenty of evidence left by these societies to indicate they had begun to develop differently from other pagen cultures and had begun moving toward monotheism.

The Babylonians placed Marduk as the ruler of the lesser dieties, even absorbing some of them into him.

Pharaoh Akhenaten attempted to convert the Egyptians to the worship of Aten alone.

The Zoroastrians had begun moving Ahura Mazda into a position of supremacy, pulling their religion away from its dualist roots.

In the Heaven worship of ancient China, Shangdi was the omnipotent "over-sovereign" (aka "god" or "heaven"). Some variants of Shangdi worship held that the function of household spirits and lesser gods was to carry out the will of Shangdi (much like saints and angels in some modern Western monotheist religions).

Although those ancient Chinese beliefs were superceded by the relatively non-theistic Confucianism and Taoism, remnants of monotheism remained. Confucius taught that Heaven guided peoples' lives.

Would at least one of these burgeoning monotheistic belief systems have developed into a belief in the universal equality of human beings? Perhaps.

After all, it took Judeo-Christianity something like 4,000 years to do so.

And don't forget, Judaism was influenced by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Romans, and other ancient cultures with which the Jews came into contact over the centuries.

Whatever drove the Jews to gradually change their xenophobic, slaveholding, oligarchical, paternal society into one that helped inspire the development of universal rights could have driven another culture to do the same.

Also for a while the catholic church was running on the assumption that everyone was puppets doing exactly what god made them do.

When the Catholic Church dropped the idea of predestination, there were plenty of Protestant religions more than happy to pick it up.

Conan keeps making it up he goes along:

Several ancient societies began the journey from polytheism to monotheism

...uh-huh. Maybe you and luj should start dating...

Martin tries to assume the normal pose of PC condescension:

Glad to hear you're no longer a member of the People's Front of Judea.

I haven't changed a bit - now would you please answer my question?

How do Westerners who have thrown over the Judeo-Christian root of the West recreate the moral climate that leads to free, equal, humane societies?

I'm still waiting... still nobody answering.

And what about all the troubles with haredim who consider themselves more authentically Jewish than all the other Jews in Israel, and therefore entitled to dictate to them & live off their labors? Every religion, Judaism included, contains within itself the seeds of tyranny by those who deem themselves more religious than the next guy. Israel is a tiny oasis of success & freedom in a sea of failure & backwardness, not just because it's Jewish, but because it's an outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. An Israel full of haredim would be a very different place.

Only a vanishingly small number of people study Latin or ancient Greek these days, and it's been a very long time since anyone believed in the gods on Olympus. But you couldn't eliminate the Greco-Roman influence on Western civilization if you tried. I'm not trivializing the Judean influence. Far from it. It's so pervasive that only mad totalitarians have thought they forcibly eliminate it. Their utopias always came crashing down.

How do Westerners who have thrown over the Judeo-Christian root of the West recreate the moral climate that leads to free, equal, humane societies?

I'm still waiting... still nobody answering.

We had answered, time and again. Do what makes you happy so long as it doesnt casue harm to others.

Now I have a question I have asked you time and again that you refuse to answer.

How can you claim that Juedo/Christian values are repsonsible for 'univeral human right' when in order to enjoy and legally implement those rights one has to IGNORE a great majority of gods commandmnets?

I think the moral root of western civilisation that lead to a more free, a more equal and a more humane societies did not orignate from any oppressive religion or any authoritarian or totalitarian ideology. I think advanced western european civilisation deteriorated when various
oppressive domineering religion or authoritarian or totalitarian ideology start pushing their bad
divisive religious influence in western civilisation. I think western civilisation advanced due to western scientific achievement and western innate morality and not due to any religion.I think religion shoud not be misused by people to expand their political power or for their religious organisation own selfish wealth accummulation purposes that was misused by their religious tribes to wage war at the slightest excuse.

Martin keeps flailing:

And what about all the troubles with haredim

1. This is a distraction. Kindly answer how you, as a freethinker, get to a free, equal, humane society without recourse to Jewish ideas.

2. Whatever the "troubles" are with haredim, the debates are taking place on the basis of Jewish ideas - for example, no haredim are forcing Filipino servants into slavery, as Muslims in America and the UK have been found to do.

And did you know about the revolution of educational opportunities for women in the haredi world recently - again, historical progress based on appeal to extant Jewish ideas.

Which again proves my point - Jewish and Christian societies start with unique assumptions that lead in certain directions over human history - with unique results.

So when you write:

Israel is a tiny oasis of success & freedom... not just because it's Jewish, but because it's an outpost of Western civilization

That's a circular argument: what makes "Western civilization" free and successful is precisely its Jewish moral content.

Now please tell us how "progressives" recreate that free, humane society without relying on Jewish ideas...

You can't recreate the West without Jewish ideas anymore than you can recreate it without Greco-Roman ideas, or reinvent the wheel. There's no time machine you can hop in to go back and change history.

And no, it's not a circular argument. Pagan Romans like the couple in this portrait:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pompeii-couple.jpg

would have had no reason to regard Jews as freer or more successful than they were. Since then, Pompeii vanished under volcanic ash, Rome fell, and Israel was wiped off the map. Jews have not spent all that time in a bubble hermetically sealed from pagan & secular ideas. They influenced, and were influenced in turn, just like the rest of us.

Odd that Martin - like many "progressives" on this thread - seems stuck in the past:

You can't recreate the West without Jewish ideas anymore than you can recreate it without Greco-Roman ideas, or reinvent the wheel. There's no time machine you can hop in to go back and change history.

My concern is not the past but the future.

We have already seen modern Western states that threw over Judeo-Christian values - and sank back into the worst sort of pagan brutality and oppression.

The two extreme cases were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia - both of which quickly lost their Western moral compass or any hint of respect for "the inalienable rights of the individual".

We are seeing a "soft" version of these developments in post-Christian Europe. Judeo-Christian morality is replaced with a utilitarian approach that judges some lives as less worthy of others, and kills off "useless eaters". The utilitarians have also reduced sexual relations to any mutually-agreed "trade" - however exploitative.

But "progressives" tell us that throwing over the Judeo-Christian "superstitions" is the way forward...

So - looking forward not back - could you kindly:

1) Explain how you justify and perpetuate the moral values that define the best of Western culture, and prevent the slide to oppression and exploitation that occurs when Jewish values are vacated.

Or

2) Admit that you don't really care about those values, and are looking forward to the coarse, debased future that such "progress" brings.

Or

3) Admit that you didn't really think this through - you just struck the fashionable "progressive" pose of sneering at Judeo-Christians, urged on by a giddy sense of youthful rebellion and self-appointed "freethinkers".

Did you have a stroke? Did you miss what I posted as an answer every god damn time you ask the question?

Asked and answered BenDavid - you have been given the answer to your question nearly a dozen times now.

Continuing to ask the question just makes you look like an idiot and an asshole.

And demand the answer to the same question dozens of times(and reciving the answer) and refusing to answer the questions put to you just makes you a jackass

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were chock full of devout Jews at the beginning. All that religious devotion didn't save them. The best of Judeo-Christian values are firmly embedded in the Constitutions of every Western country. Supporting constitutional, limited government is my plan for the future.

Martin proves my point:

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were chock full of devout Jews at the beginning. All that religious devotion didn't save them.

Yes, that's right - because the people in power threw over Judeo-Christian VALUES.

Nobody here ever mentioned "religious devotion" as some magic mumbo-jumbo - except for you and other "progressives" looking for a straw man.

So when you write:

The best of Judeo-Christian values are firmly embedded in the Constitutions of every Western country.

That included Germany - which granted full rights to its Jews a century before Hitler.

So - what happened?
Why didn't the "constitution" of this "Western country" protect the Jews from demonization?

The answer is that Germany dissolved its cultural connection to "the best of Judeo-Christian values" - and the secular residue of those values was insufficient to prevent a slide back to barbarism.

So: how do modern "freethinkers" protect "progressive" society from the same fate? How do they justify and perpetuate the values that safeguard Western society - when the connection to the Judeo-Christian tradition is dead?

Still no answer...