The problem with mentioning a moral compass is that you can look right to the animal kingdom, including insects, to see behavior like humans. Elephants have a great society together with only specific "sins" and aggressiveness; a sample:

Each elephant troop has its own home range, but territorial fights are rare even though ranges often overlap. While several hundred elephants may roam a similar range, small "kin groups" form between female relatives. The leader of each group is a respected old female with years of accumulated knowledge. This matriarch is the mother and grandmother of other members but sometimes allows her sisters and their offspring to join the group. Once a male reaches maturity, he is forced to leave. The entire group looks to the matriarch for guidance, particularly in the face of danger. Her actions, based on her superior knowledge, will determine whether the group flees or stands its ground. Young members learn from their elders how to find water and food during drought, when to begin travel and where to go, and many other survival skills. This knowledge is passed on from generation to generation.

Once a male elephant reaches sexual maturity at 12 years or older, the matriarch no longer tolerates him in the group. He will then live mostly alone or perhaps join a small, loosely-knit group of other males. Bull elephants seldom form long-term relationships with other males, but often one or two young males accompany an old bull, perhaps to learn from him. Bulls often spar with each other to establish a dominance hierarchy. Elephants have an excellent memory; once a social hierarchy is established, the same two elephants not only recognize each other, even after many years, but know which one is dominant. This way, they avoid fighting again to reestablish dominance. After about 25 years of age, male elephants experience annual periods of heightened sexuality called "musth," which lasts about a week in younger animals and perhaps three or four months as they near their 50s. During this time they aggressively search out females and challenge other bulls, sometimes even causing more dominant males to back down. Different bulls come into musth at different times of the year; however, two well-matched bulls in musth may fight to the death.

Modern humans were almost always raised to be social and learned how to cope with societal problems; sins became sins because that behavior elicited change and no matter how small the sin was it's is still an unknown to that society. Out of fear it becomes a sin or like everything else, evolution demanded it for the betterment of the species. Fear is our main motivation it lays at the core of almost all we do.

If you use evolution, society, and their mutual affiliation and synergistic properties you might find a "moral" compass that we can use without fear. Closest rule I've seen to show this is the golden rule.

/lengthy
//really!
///*edit: Yes, whatever we come up with will be imperfect.

I know that your point is that you dont need a supernatural being for moral guidance and I agree.

I was trying to illustrate that because it wasn't a god who wrote the bible, but rather people trying to better society, the type of morality you get from it is no different (in principal) than the alternative you are proposing.

What I'm suggesting is that the moral compass you are recommending is also invalid. If you base your morality on whats good for society, your morality will become outdated as soon as society changes. Why do you think the bible morality seems so crazy? Its not beacuse a god wrote it, its because society has changed and the men who wrote it failed to choose a timeless foundation for thier moral compass.

Think about it, if morality is based on the state of the society, and society is always changing, then historically, all men will appear immoral in the eyes of the historian. Any system you propose may seem "good" by todays standards, but what will your future peers think of it when they judge you just as you are judging those from the biblical era?

How can a moral system be good if it dooms every follower to immorality?

I'd still say that Scientology is just plain wackier than nearly every other religion.

Jesus had some good stuff to teach, Buddha had some good stuff to teach, so did Confucious, Lao Tze, Muhammad, etc... As an atheist, I can acknowledge that history has a multitude of wise and enlightened people to draw upon for guidance.

L. Ron Hubbard was a failed Sci-Fi writer, and noted pederast. Scientology is bunk. If there's anything redeeming about it, I have yet to see proof.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I applaud any person willing to swim against the tide of mindless "Oooh! Oooh! Me too!"-ism that goes on here in the sift. Well done Mr. BurdT. While I'm not a fan of profanity or inflammatory language, I certainly support those who spike the wheels of atheist groupthink.
This discussion essentially follows the traditional fallacious nature of most atheist vs. God debates. The atheist premise is that if God existed, he would prevent human suffering. Or - phrased a different way - God must not exist otherwise he would not allow people to suffer. Or - a different way - "Hahaha your 'loving' Christian God is really a cruel sadist because he allows & creates suffering."
This is the fundamental flaw in the atheist position. The existence of suffering does not mean that God created the suffering or that he enjoys it. It displays a fundamental lack of understanding about the very basic nature of what God is, and what he wants.

There's a fundamental flaw in the religious position: They have no proof.

And how come it's ok for Christians to claim that other religions are wrong (even different sects of their own) yet when an atheist makes that claim about ALL religions, he or she needs to back off and be understanding? Really you don't want atheists to back off religions, you just want them to back off of yours, because they make your religion look as stupid as it is. Yes I said "stupid", I'm not trying to hold anything back or be diplomatic because, well, your crummy religions are messing up the fucking world. There I said it.

And as for eastern religions Hinduism, Buddhism, etc; all that spiritual stuff, is BS in my book. In my eyes though, those religions are less of a threat to us as a society. Maybe because they don't affect us on the west. Maybe because spiritual practice is more part of a personal journey and the folklore aspect of those religions are understood as metaphors and parables to aid in the guidance of one's own healthy living.

Muslims and Jews though...they need to wake up and smell the dog shit that they're helping the Christians smear all over the world. There is no one true god, no messiah and thus no reason to fight. They're all wrong.

I have read Richard Clarke's book. It was good.
He was one of the few whitehouse staffers that wasn't replaced when bush took office (and he served other presidents before clinton as well).

Most remarkable comment about the day of Sept 11th was that Condi Rice's reaction was near panic to the point where she became completely useless at her job.

I also liked his remark about how Bill Clinton was always up late reading books (no, not porn mags) and always read every major paper each morning. And George W. Bush was always in bed around 9pm. (I guess the latter relied more on prayer for guidance, than on information).

And as far as hate of religion Westy...,
It was people of religion who funded these people to go out and it was people with guidance that that came forward and supplied the help. Do you really think these kids care what religion even is at this point - only that they were helped and survived.

I didn't see a video of your journey into nowhere to help the dyeing. All in the the name of Atheism!

This is not a religious video - It is Humanitarian!

As much as it's annoying to see the press fawning over the leaders, this was fun.

I love the report from the CSM:

"The Daily Guidance from the White House said “12:30 lunch in Oval Office, closed press.”
But now we know better. By “we,” I mean the White House press corps, where this reporter had pool duty Tuesday.
Those wild and crazy guys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue summoned the motorcade, and off we went across the Roosevelt Bridge into Arlington, Va., to Ray’s Hell Burger — a joint so new it still doesn’t have a sign up.
Obama and Biden entered through the front door. The press pool — yours truly included — entered through the back. At least Barack and Joe didn’t pull rank and cut the line: The leaders of the free world, all spiffed up in suits and ties, stood patiently with the regular lunch crowd, waiting their turn.
Obama then looked toward the pool and said, “Who’s taking orders here? My treat to the pool.”
...
Some declined, but others didn’t want to seem ungracious, so we ordered burgers. (Note: The five of us who did order are making a donation to charity, in lieu of attempting to reimburse POTUS. Caren noted that Obama has fed the press before, such as during the campaign, when he bought ice cream.)
While Obama and Biden waited in line, the lunch crowd stood and gawked, some took pix with cell phones. The two guys in line ahead of them studied their menus, oblivious to who was behind them.
When Obama and Biden reached the front, Obama greeted the two order-takers. A guy named Tim Murray took Obama’s order.
...
Then Obama took an order for his body guy, Reggie Love, and relayed the press’s order as well.
“These are to go, ‘cuz you guys aren’t gonna have tables.” Then: “We’re paying, or these people [the pool] are gonna write about how we’re free-loading.”
Obama pulled out some bills and paid, putting a $5 bill in the tip jar.
Biden ordered a Swiss cheese burger with jalapeno peppers. Biden paid for his order separately, with cash. He also got some food to go.
Then Obama said to the pool: “You guys are cheap dates. I can’t believe I couldn’t get more of you to order a burger.”
Obama and Biden sat at a table and had their lunch, while the pool waited outside. At 1:05, they emerged. Crowds cheered as Obama stood on the running board of his limo and waved.
Motorcade back at White House at 1:14 pm. Obama and Biden emerged from the same limo. No doubt they were prepping for the next event on their calendar — a closed-press meeting with President Shimon Peres of Israel.
I closed my pool report with: “I’m still waiting for my burger.” But I just heard from the pool minder, Ben Finkenbinder, who says my burger is waiting for me.
Gotta run."

Empahsis mine.

Funny stuff.

Sorry but I have to remove this from the science channel. I also suggest a *lies tag. This 'doctor' (he's just a dentist) lives on making shit up. Just look at his website.

(one of his books)
http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Leonard-Horowitz/Walk-on-Water/0923550372.html
"DR. HOROWITZ: An angel directed the writing of this book. I’ve simply been following what appears to be Divine guidance and universal intelligence. The information is highly practical and scientifically sensible, but the manner in which I came across this information is not considered “normal.” This is my 15th major book. Most of these are pretty thick, extensively investigated, with pages of scientific references. Not Walk on Water. The persuasive power behind these revelations hold their own and touch your heart. These obvious truths are so compelling that most people who read it will know this is from a Divine Source.

I’ve simply been listening to that, so called, inner voice. The book resulted from this and numerous, virtually daily, synchronicities. The people who sourced the data came into my life without much effort. The Bible says, “the steps of the righteous are ordered.” I had every step ordered by unexpected delights--revelations about spiritual evolution and Divine communion. The book came by simply following this calling"



*nochannel *Wtf *Worldaffairs *Fear *Drugs *News *Talks

Well, he seems to have all the stereotypical gestures and sounds bites of a career politician down pat.

I don't think his mother gave birth to him at all, I think he was probably just assembled in Alabama with spare parts from dead republicans. Coulter was probably so excited about the project he donated his penis.

New blood is new blood, but it's pretty sad when both your party and your country are in a state of crisis and free fall that you turn to a 14 year old for guidance and ideas; that goes for any political party that would be so desperate to retain some amount of its power.

If he actually turns out to be the one that "saves" the republican party, I'll eat my hat.

Who said anything about values? I believe they were discussing moral guidance. Neither religion nor science teach moral guidance but only science makes the claim of never trying to.

Why does the GOP bow to a fat, lying, opportunistic slob for their guidance?

Because he justifies their ignorance and bigotry.

1. Dune - Frank Herbert
Dune remains amoung my favourite book I've read and the only one I've read multiple times. While I was disappointed by the rest of the series, the first book is a tremendous read and very enjoyable.

2. Deadhouse Gates - Steven Erikson (Book 2 of the Malazan Book of the Fallen series)
The Malazan Empire series by Steven Erikson is one of the hardest to read fantasy books I've ever encountered. The author has a complex web of relations and events going on while writing with a fairly high level of english. The second book stands out for its section call "The Chain of Dogs" which details a group of refugees fleeing to safety under the guidance of a powerful leader.

3. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams
A great blend of comedy and science fiction. I still remember the first time I read the passage about the two missles screaming toward the Heart of Gold. I burst out laughing as the petunias came into being.

4. The Colour of Magic - Terry Pratchett
The fantasy version of Douglas Adams. Equally enjoyable and both love to use footnotes* for off the wall observations.

5. Sword of Shannara - Terry Brooks
While probably not the best written book and it is clearly Tolkien inspired, it is in my top 5 simply because it was the first real book I ever read. Previously I only read a few kids books, this one was a beefy amount of pages that took my 12 year old mind nearly a year to get through.

*Attaching notes to one foot does seem an odd, and potentially painful way (if you use a tac) to do things.

Lately Kucinich has been hitting the monetary policy hard. He seems to be collaborating with the American Monetary Institute in receiving guidance on how to handle his proposed legislation. If ever there was a time to propose monetary reform, that time is now.

Thanks, Flood. I don't feel bad now.

Most of his barbs are justifiably pointed at religious leaders, but there's some serious mocking of the individual believers as well. He does point out that atheism is a luxury for him, and he's right. I don't take it for granted that if I can live without God, I can do so because I've got love and guidance and belonging from people in my life, so I don't have any need for a magic Dad in the sky.

I think a lot of the time we accuse the faithful of intellectual laziness or ignorance without acknowledging that they are just trying to get what so many of us are fortunate to have.

Below is a couple paragraphs about Christopher Booker, taken from an article titled "The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation".


For several years he has been waging a similar war against "warmist alarmists", by which he means climate scientists. Nine days ago, for instance, he attacked Michael Mann for publishing a paper that shows (alongside scores of other studies) that global temperatures do indeed follow the famous hockey-stick pattern: a moderate long-term cooling trend terminating in a sudden upward bend. Mann, Booker told his readers, had been "selective ... in his new data, excluding anything which confirmed the Medieval Warming". But Mann's paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, uses every uncluttered high-resolution proxy temperature record in the public domain. How did Booker trip up so badly? By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.

Under their guidance he routinely mistakes weather for climate and makes claims about the temperature record that bear no relation to the studies he cites. My favourite Booker column is the piece he wrote in February, titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". In September 2007, he reported, "sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km". To reinforce this point, he helpfully republished the graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.

But for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist - Melanie Phillips included - who has spread more misinformation. The world becomes even harder to navigate. You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust.

Full article can be found here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health