Damnit, you’re right. Scratch Fonzie then.

Hey, he can fix just about anything just by hitting it!

When schoolteachers molest underage students, do they do so in violation of the ten commandments, their own personal sense of morality, or rules set down by the Board of Education?

I’m gonna have to go with all of the above. Including state, local and possibly federal law. So what’s your point? You’re saying that one cannot be moral without a belief in God. I’m saying bullshit, a belief in God does not make one moral, as you seem to concede.

Lord Acton! Post Colonial Africa! Whatever was on my Quote of the Day calendar last week!

You’re all hot air, no brains, frank.

The reason you should be ignored Frank is that your response is nothing but a bunch of pompous non-sequiturs strung together to give the appearance of thought where none has actually occurred. Lord Acton? Post Colonial Africa? WTF are you talking about?

You really shouldn’t speak in such universals Frank. There is no case that you know of where people were afforded simple respect and dignity, without reference to a Supreme Being? Really? None? Then you cite the Declaration of Independence?

Does the European Union’s Constitution make reference to a supreme being? I don’t know, just asking…

At the same time, your observation isn’t a refutation that just and equitable societies can’t be built without reference to a supreme being so it is, in fact, utterly irrelevant.

You agree that we don’t need the concept of a supreme being to affirm the dignity and grace of human life and so respect it , but then suggest that only a concept of a supreme being can keep a leader from abusing their power over people. Again, frank, you wanna know a good way to keep leaders from abusing power of their people? Why don’t we start with a good old fashioned man-made Constitution, fer crying out loud.

If the only thing keeping George Bush from not violating the US Constitution — *choke, choke* — is his faith god, well, again, were back into frightening land.

And frank, i can respect the dignity of man without necessarily respecting some men, such as yourself. You’re a total idiot.

Frank/Lysander, as I said before, the ancient Chinese. Even if your objection to my example were true, and they were simply animists, that would only serve to validate my point. They did not believe in any kind of personal supernatural being, who cared about human morality. Mountains and the North Wind and Water care no more about how humans mistreated each other in China than the vague shadowy deities which they most certainly also venerated. So my point remains.

The concept of a linkage between morality and the divine is a relatively recent innovation in the history of human thought. Obviously, morality itself preceded this linkage (as Rex pointed out), and in the case of the Chinese, the linkage never really was made. Confucianism was a wholly humanist religion, and the Taoist Way is totally impersonal. The ancient Greek philosophers started questioning their own myths precisely because the Olympians acted like immortal assholes with superpowers. The Greeks also had a sense of morality, obviously, which had bugger-all to do with their gods. QED.

You make the assumption that we need the concept of a supreme being to affirm, indeed, to even recognize the dignity and grace of humanity.
Simply put,no we don’t. But there is no case that I know of where people were afforded simple respect and dignity, without reference to a Supreme Being (”endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”, for example).

I will grant that you are unique — I certainly don’t know anyone like you — but possessed of “great grace”? Possessed of the ability “to recognize the beauty of humanity and the need to act morally towards my fellow man”? Possessing human empathy? Let’s just say the jury is out on that.

But Frank, you fail to recognize that it was not their rejection of god that was the problem, it was what they replaced god with, which was, in a sense, a god in the form of man: the totalitarian leader.
And what you fail to recognize is the universality of Lord Acton’s statement: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

One only has to look at the post colonial powers in Africa to see what happens when power is vested in the hands of one man.

And that is precisely why it is inconceivable that a man not possessed of an image of, and a relationship with, a Supreme Being, can ever achieve ultimate power over people without abusing that power.

It most certainly is not because I lack imagination — an accusation you uncharitably made, for no other reason than to be spiteful and mean - spirited. That was something you no doubt taught yourself about morality, empathy, and recognition of the dignity of man.

A society run by you, and people like you, would certainly be frightening.

Or is that “fuck all” a sign that that ridiculous message came from Nimrod?

Thanks, Frank. Not interested in doing anything together with you. I don’t know how I would begin cleansing myself of your filth.

Besides, it would make fuck all difference. You’ll change your revolving mind.

Religion is a human creation and as such can vary as widely as human imagination allows.

As for the super-humanity deal, I’ll grant you Fonz in that regadrd, but Haruhi-ism and Jedi fit that “requirement”.

Someone want to tell me why we couldn’t replace the Bible with The Silmarillion and make Peter Jackson some kind of prophet?

There shouldn’t be any reason, but the elitests of the mainstream religions will whine about how it’s a “fake” religion, or some shit like that.

When schoolteachers molest underage students, do they do so in violation of the ten commandments, their own personal sense of morality, or rules set down by the Board of Education?

A group may actually have to take in new members to replace the lazy bastards they have to kick out.
You misunderstand the process. They take in a passing stranger, give him temporary hospitality, and then he moves on. They don’t make him a member of the tribe.

Do some quick research :: Google +banishment +exile -wikipedia +history

You will see who got banished and why.

Contrary to Rex’s speculation, the current hypotheses as to how “crime” and “mischief” were punished come from how they are punished in currently existing preliterate and preindustrial societies.

Would you like me to leave?

OK. Fine. You and I. Together.

Conversely, LSII, if morality were dependant on religion or even God, there would be no occasion when someone who believed in God would act immorally, right?

All those priests who diddled choirboys? What would possibly cause them to act immorally? Not with God on their side, certainly.
Is it the threat of eternal damnation and hellfire in a vague afterlife that no one can prove or disprove that keeps faithful people moral?

You say nothing that undermines what Rex was saying. Taking strangers in is not equivalent to shunning one who brings down the rest. A group may actually have to take in new members to replace the lazy bastards they have to kick out.

While shunning seems to intrigue you (I assume you oppose capital punishment), even ancient nomadic cultures (e.g., the desert folks of the Middle East) have long had a tradition of taking strangers in. So it would seem that casting tribal members — one of whom might literally be married to your sister — off to the unpredictable elements, would have been too cruel for even Ringo’s tribe.

I already mentioned the scenario hypothesized by anthropologists, not Jean M. Auel, or Hollywood screenwriters.

Since all you commenters were so upset by posting anonymously, I have a handle you can use, and I will repond to the anonymous and fake name commenters I choose to.

Really Short Sketch: Ain’t I cool? Huh? Huh?

All the lembas you can carry. Yes on the hat.

Shorter Frank: I get really, REALLY turned on derailing OW’s threads and enjoy my revolving door habit of leaving and returning and leaving and returning and leaving and …

Sure, how much does the gig pay? And can I wear a funny hat?

Rex, yeah, I’ve been around and around Robin Hood’s barn (speaking of legendary characters) with regard to arguing for the evidence, and it really does seem to come down to how much doubt one is willing to suspend to believe. Moses is indeed on a par with Odysseus or Beowulf (you’d think the Egyptians would have noticed losing a whole army in the Red Sea, eh?), but for me the evidence for Jesus is not much more compelling.