So why keep carrying on this silly argument about gods with theists? Can’t we get on with our lives withOUT having to deal with superstition and the supernatural? Would you be having this discussion with an Elvis believer or a Tooth Fairy apologist? I don’t think so.

Can we start having the right discussions about what a rationally and scientifically based morality would be? Can we start talking sense and stop wasting our breath and passion arguing ridiculous assertions by theists? We need to put some stakes in the ground, to give people an attractive alternative instead of simply saying the other side is wrong, which by the way is what creationists do when arguing against evolution.

http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/21996/

Principles, on the other hand, exalt only their defined nature. Place your faith there, and build systems that sustain good principles, taking into account the nature of desire contained within beings.

The church has been busy re-framing God for centuries to influence others or to meet up with their own agendas. Many of those definitions have done more harm than good. My best definition is to say that god is “Jesus-like”. If that definition is too small, so be it.

The issue really ought not be belief/understanding but trust/faith. We ALL trust in something or someone. Something or someone holds the place of ultimate significance in all our lives. Why not call that “god?” We are all people of faith—every one of us. It’s unavoidable. The ultimate question/quest is to discover/determine what deserves our faith…

All but the best and the brightest assumed that their governmental authority and our morality came from some supernatural dictate based solely on ignorance when, in fact, any governmental authority and all morality comes from the consensus of an educated populace (“We the People” of our Constitution) or the acquiescence of an uneducated populace (servility of, even serfdom of, subjects of a kingdom, a church, or theocracy, i.e. tyranny).

This, as a logical consequence, leads one to imagine the scenario of an extraterrestrial super intelligence (I cannot bring myself to imagine some supernatural entity; where would I begin?) either claiming to be our Ruler or our partner and a welcome addition to the consensus. In the former, it is our enemy through charlatanry, but in the latter, it would be the partnership that would gain from the cooperation. This is why, I, for one, reject all supernatural claims to authority, morality, even divine inspiration, i.e. revelation or what have you; divine authority takes from the human race while an addition to a consensual memetic is a function of growth and intellectual prosperity.

And finally, even though I wear the theologically imposed moniker of atheist like a badge of honor, a title of achievement, or nom de plume, if you will, I, and I gather you do as well, see the ethical and political implications as far more important to myself and far more revealing of the theologically bent mentality.

Thank you.

While many who claim political power begin with a view toward benevolence, the mere act of centralizing power and authority will reliably produce authoritarian results. Even Christ, who you cite, primarily promoted an authoritarian view of god.

Read the opening example in this story; in a later article, I’m going to apply my ideas above and talk about this example.

Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

The U.S. Constitution is committed to exactly what it states it’s committed to. That, of course, is open to interpretation. But, what seems clearly nonsensical is to suggest that the words in the Constitution essentially mean nothing.

So, then the question is, what do the words mean? I’m suggesting here that if you feel that the Constitution does not mean that we are working for the greatest good for the greatest number, what’s the alternative? It has to mean something, and not defining that something is not a rational option.

Regarding non-human animals…of course. But the U.S. Constitution specifically references “We the people.” Again, we will need to agree on the meaning of that term, but once we do, can measure the results of our stated shared values.

Part of my point here is to ground moral theory into practical aims. Moral theorists spend a lot of time in discussion of pure theory, looking for the weaknesses and shortcomings; e.g., criticisms of utilitarianism in some pure sense.

I like pure theory, and believe it has its place, but it doesn’t seem to have much immediate practical application. Governments, on the other hand, are designed with specific goals in mind. The U.S. Constitution specifically states those goals. It defines a relative population and attempts to create a tangible framework of policies and practices. It is not concerned with universals and absolutes. It is a finite initiative whose goals can be quantified.

This grounds theory into something practical and useful. That we haven’t recognized it as such in the past doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do so in the future. And I’m suggesting that all the framework is in place in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

What’s more? It gives theorists good opportunities to further refine universal theories. Governments as practical case studies.