I found the National Geographic program on the Gospel of

If you don't treat people fairly, they will avoid you. Remember Scrooge viewing the end of his life? Everyone was so used to avoiding him that he died alone and all anyone was interested in was stealing what he had left.

I used to tell my sister that you can't expect fairness; the best you can hope for is consistency and then you can function.

If you are consistently a jerk, I assure you I will not give you any benefit of the doubt.

Diana

Those people would be treated well so that they will do what you want them to do. That doesn't mean you treat everyone well. You treat them well only to the extent that it satisfies your desires. Obviously, being blatant about such an attitude is counter productive.

Please note that the mini-discussion here is on what is the 'best' behaviour if there is no God to establish right, wrong, good, and evil among many other things.

they deserve until proven otherwise. I'm still not nasty to them - I simply don't trust them.

Diana

observing the Golden Rule. The same conclusion applies if people do not treat a 'jerk' well. That's even more reason why you don't need to observe the GR. Thus, you need to modify your behaviour to convince, at least some people, to observe it with respect to you. Once that's covered, you can go back to ignoring it.

Dieing alone probably doesn't matter much in a godless universe. There is definitely no reason to care if people steal after you die.

Epicureanism was a philosophy based on pleasure which still recognized the rights of others. The Greeks created a plethora of philosophies, but each of them had strictures over how one treated others, because a society of people living in contact with one another requires rules of conduct. That's why they opposed the Persians, because the Persians believed only in the rules of their king, and these rules changed at his whim. Rome had rules too but was a more predatory society than Greece in that regard. Even pagan religions like the Celts had rules of conduct and societal norms, as did the Vikings, but generally those rules applied only to other members of that society. Saxons might be piratical and take slaves, but slaves particularly female slaves could be adopted into the tribe through marriage. That is something that Islamic societies which are still relatively tribal have in common with pagan and pre-Christian religions.

That said there are endless examples right up to the present day of Christians acting as barbaric as ancient societies or Islamic terrorists. Take one look at Ireland, the IRA, and the UDV (Ulster Defence Volunteers, Protestants). The IRA has renounced violence in pursuit of its political goals, but the IRA has always been the Organized Crime of Southern Ireland, and probably still is, though I am now out of touch with the news from there.

Rob

of God, one would observe rules only to the extent that they serve one's own desires. That may mean complete obedience, and it might mean complete flouting. There is no difference between the two from a moral perspective. There is only a judgement as to what best serves the desires and goals of the individual. If ignoring a rule leads to painful consequences, then the rule has more chance of being observed.

Christian behaviour is irrelevant to the discussion. Behaviour, such as you describe in Ireland, is not Christian, and the people engaging in it are not practicing their faith if, indeed, they have a faith. That's almost history 101. I'm surprised you would throw in such a superficial argument.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. KJV

So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. RSV

Mt 7:12. Note that Jesus says it's implicit in Jehovah's Law. (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.) The closest written one like it is from Confucius, who stated the negative version: Don't do bad to others if you don't want them to do bad to you. That of Jesus is more upbeat, proactive, and useful, and in any case he appealed to a higher authority.

"belief system": see my other reply.

outright pagans (Those who believe in goddesses?) that even they have a conscience that prohibits many forms of bad behavior. His context was First Corinthians, in which he chews out his fellow Christians for tolerating one of their number who was behaving badly!

Actually, psychologists and bible writers are agreed that we all have a religion. For some it's our own pleasure, for others it's the political system, for Charlie Parker it was jazz. ("I'm a devout musician.")

What keeps you from lurking around ATMs to whack withdrawers on the head for money? Whatever it is, it's a commendable code in that respect, anyway. I had a code like that, then I discovered that the bible has a better one.

I'd say ethics are not religious at all, and I'd add that most people deal with ethics no matter what religion they have, nor would I agree that the ethics of reciprocity go against your religious beliefs.

I think you meant, 'an atheist can be ethical,' and I agree. You're right about the reciprocity in Christianity, but it's a little deeper than *** for tat:
In the context of John 3:16, the same writer says (1 John 4:10,19), ''The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins ... As for us, we love [Jehovah], because he first loved us.''
John has in mind this sequence, in which he believed because it's in the bible: Jehovah created angels and man so that others besides himself could experience and enjoy life. Adam failed the test of sovereignty ('Who's in charge here?'), so the ransom sacrifice arrangement was set up. (John 3:16) Being born in sin (think 'genetic disease') I would be doomed to die like Adam, but I get to take advantage of Jesus' actions. (Rom 5:12, 6:23) This is so, even though I wasn't born - Jehovah didn't know me - when the sacrifice was set up! (That's why we consider the observance of that death, April 12th this year, so important.)

An illustration:
You are born into a wealthy family. Because of an ancestor's bad actions, the law catches up with you, your family is stripped of its money and you're sentenced to death. Then a benefactor shows up, willing to make things right and restore your prosperity. It has nothing to do with your intrinsic worth or lack of it, he just doesn't like to see injustice prevail.
Would you accept his offer? Would you be willing to make certain changes in your life style, provided he first allowed you to examine those changes to see that they weren't harmful or unethical?

hearts. If, as proposed here, there is no God, then there is also no law written in the heart.

What keeps one from whacking someone at the ATM machine is one's own preferences and desires. Some may find robbery unpleasant, or hitting someone unpleasant. Therefore, they would choose not to engage in those activities as long as they have sufficient funds of their own. Others, of course, may find the prospect of jail unpleasant.

1. It pleases you to hope that folks do the 'right thing', but there is no reason for them to do so if it does not please them. Of course, no one knows what the 'right thing' is anyway.

2. It makes you feel good in an emotional sense to have empathy for people. Someone who lacks such empathy could experience the same 'good' emotion for other reasons.

3. You are riding on the coattails of the religious. You are finding some sort of value in their behaviour while rejecting the reason that they behave as they do. You can't quite bring yourself to accept the implications of your faith.

4. You are still trying to persuade everyone else, including me, to observe the GR. You, of course, have no intention of observing it when you don't want to do so. That is, IMCO, the most rational position.

you are in deep, deep do-do for you have lived assuming that this will not happen.

understand? If there is no God, one is accountable only to one's self. One is free of any moral authority which might influence one to make unpleasant choices. One can simply do what one wishes to do. That's what we do anyway, but now there is no God to change the calculus.

If you agree that it is good to have others treat you based on the Golden Rule, then you will presumably agree that it is desirable to encourage others to observe the Golden Rule at least with respect to you. If you do not agree with this simple proposition, then the discussion is over. You don't accept my premise, and there's no way I can rationally convince you that you should.

At times, practicing the Golden Rule requires self-sacrifice. It may even require you to give up your life. Unless you want to give up your life, it is irrational to make such a sacrifice. There are many good things which lie in the future. You will never know those good things if you do, and dying will gain you nothing. You will be gone, and will never receive anything in exchange for your sacrifice. Your electrons will return to the cosmos. Therefore, under these and other similar circumstances, your most rational choice is to ignore the Golden Rule on that occasion. You do, however, have to be careful that no one realizes you ignored the GR, or, if they do see it, convince them to forgive your weakness. Otherwise, they might stop treating you based on the GR.

There are, of course, people for whom you might give your life. However, that willingness is unlikely to extend much beyond those you love. Dying for them would be doing what you wish to do. It will give you the most satisfaction. I am not referring to this group in the GR discussion. For those you love, you are not really motivated by the GR.

Really, what sense does it make to throw out a charge without backing up or explaining it?

My dictionary says an anarchist is 'a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed'.

Perhaps you will explain how you got from what I said to anarchist? The connection, I must admit, totally escapes me.

This is what I want to do and I will do it no matter what. Kinda like the grasshopper.

Eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow we may die. The problem is if you don't die tomorrow. Then you have to figure out how to survive.

It's nice to be free of all restraints but it's hard to make a living that way. It's nice that other people don't feel that way and they provide the infrastructure for you to play at being a big bad free spirit. I always find it very interesting that these demonstrators - the self-styled anarchists - use the planes and hotels and cars that are made and manned by non-anarchists.

Diana

It doesn't have your definition for the word anarchist. We could at least try to use words with their correct meaning.

'Eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow we may die'

That's about it for an atheist. Of course, nothing that I said assumes that we will die tomorrow. A person thinking rationally will realize that provision must be made for tomorrow. Such a person will want to have a good day tomorrow, and will try to provide for that. Nothing that I said suggests otherwise. If you mean tomorrow as in 100 years from now, you are right. We will all be dead and gone, and, for us, there will be no need to survive.

I also did not say anything about not working. Most people want to work so that they can satisfy their needs and desires. They could steal of course, but who wants to wind up in jail? Why choose the street when some work will yield, at the very least, a comfortable apartment? Others work because they want to survive. They all do what they do because they want to do so.

Incidentally, this kind of thinking is not confined to the atheist. No less than Jonathon Edwards argued that this is exactly how human beings operate. It is what makes our behaviour very predictable.

When I say all acts are selfish ones, that includes loss of life -- it is the ultimate selfish act, wanting someone else to live more than oneself.

The golden rule is quite rational, therefore it is not something to discard if inconvenient.

Something I came across while looking for something else:

But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness. Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon. What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, "I will." "Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold--a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou shalt!" The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things--glitter on me. All values have already been created, and all created values--do I represent.

romantic rubbish.

Selfish? What's wrong with being selfish? Perhaps you don't like it, but that is emotion rather than logic.

I agree that the Golden Rule is rational, but only up to a point. It can become irrational if it requires unrewarded sacrifice. You say it should not be discarded, but fail to explain why. That is not reason. It is an attempt to force your opinion on me. Your opinion has no more weight than mine. In fact, it has substantially less weight than mine to me.

Then....poetry about spirits and dragons! Puleeeeeese! We are discussing a Godless universe. Remember? There is matter and energy. Where are you finding spirit? You are trying to cover over a lack of rationality with a romantic appeal to emotion. you cannot face a Godless universe. You are, at heart, a theist. As we all are. God has written it on our hearts.

QED

behavior, but it does this through a number of mechanisms. Shared values (which need not be religious ones, but it helps), group dynamics and discipline (again not necessarily religious but it helps), one's innate beliefs regarding respect for another (not religious but overlaps), law and the expectation of punishment (non religious), and beliefs drawn directly from ones religious beliefs. You can have a law abiding society which is neither Christian nor religious, but I think its probably harder to do and may be somewhat more inclined to breakdown.

That said, there have been some deeply religious people who have found it easy to commit crimes. I keep coming back to Charles Keating of The Southwest Savings and Loan, as an example. Apparently very devout, but happy to finesse the legal and financial systems he was working within. Some people find their religion prompts them to do things that are outside the law that are admirable(harboring refugees) and others do things that are less admirable (bombing abortion clinics, or shooting the doctors who work there).

I think we need to adopt a holistic approach here, rather than an either or approach. Generally religious people are more dependably law abiding, but I wouldn't venture a guess on the percentage differential. I do think its fairly small, because societal constraints are almost as strong as religious ones (and are derived from them even if they are no longer overtly religious).

I think you're both on the right track but are having trouble seeing that they are parallel tracks. JMO

Rob

You used the word right here:

'The golden rule is quite rational, therefore it is not something to discard if inconvenient.'

and you seemed to be saying that selfish is bad.

Perhaps you should say plainly what you mean instead of dancing around with poetry and vague statements that you can then back away from. Your latest post is certainly very obscure. You're now reversing any sense of what you originally wrote, and referring to an obscure dictionary without even quoting it.

I stand by my previous conclusion until you can come up with a more cogent, logically coherent response.

when convenient. I stand by that. I don't see what the problem is, except I wasnt sure what you were talkinga bout when you said, "You say it should not be discarded, but fail to explain why."

Also, I've been consistent in saying that 'selfish' is not bad, as well as being consistent in saying that dictionnary defitions reflect the general population's belief that it is bad. Are these definitions for 'selfish' less obscure? I think most of them are pretty much in agreement, if not the exact wording.

If a person's selfish interest is to help someone, then the rational thing to do is to act according to that self interest. Such action would be consistent with the Golden Rule.

I agree that some people's selfishness does not extend to other people. A narcissist is a prime example -- he would have no empathy for another person and never will.

discarded when self interest calls for that. In the absence of a rational explanation, all that is left is your opinion that the GR should never be discarded. Obviously, others can have contrary and equally valid opinions.

It seems we agree on the logic of selfishness for the atheist. I should add to your statement however that if a person's self interest is to refuse to help someone, then the rational thing to do is to act according to that self interest. Such action would violate the Golden Rule.