This is quite a thread derailment. So briefly back on topic: there can be no long-term agreement between a faction which holds that all of Palestine is an Islamic waqf, and a faction which believes it has a god-given right to the territory. Either both sides continue to assert this and eventually one faction is destroyed (which can realistically only be Hamas and the groups which take its place), or at least one side backs down. The ideal solution would be one secular state. This however would require Israel to give up its farcical claims to the land and stop parading the star of David on its flag, and peacefully join with the Palestinians whose leadership give up their desire to unify the region under Islam and to 'destroy Israel'. If Palestinian objection to Israel was expressed as a reasoned distaste for the claims for and very concept of a state under one religion (in this case Judaism) - and in no way blind hatred of Jews - while recognising that secular coexistence is desirable, then progress can be made..
Dealing with the first claim, why be moral? For any possible action, one can ask the question of why it should be done. Why should morality be taken as something to believe without logic? It's as irrational as blind faith.
I behave in a moral way because I don't enjoy inflicting suffering upon others and wouldn't want the suffering to be inflicted upon me (that's moral universality, I think). That's all I can say without any specific examples of moral or immoral acts. I don't agree that such a stance is comparable with blind faith. For example I don't kill because I wouldn't like to be killed, is that not logical? It has nothing to do with blind faith positions such as belief in the soul or belief in the afterlife or belief in a god-given right to territory.
Whether or not morality is absolute depends on how it is defined. The will of God is presumably absolute, but human opinions change over time- including their views of morality. It is an empirically demonstrable fact that such is the case.
Whilst there is an easy "out" clause in the Bible for an effectively arbitrary morality (Jesus said that God had only permitted divorce for necessities of the time, or something like that- I am willing to admit I don't remember the bible that well), I would argue that, unless there is some good reason (e.g- the moral opinions of a saint who actually performs a miracle, or a great theologian demonstrating his view from the evidence), one should assume that God's morality is as laid out.
I dispute that the will of god exists, and seeing as you later ask for my evidence for certain points I would be justified here in asking for evidence that there is a god and that it has a will, but that is not demonstrable, so the will of god can be safely disregarded. Incidentally I am yet to hear of a great theologian who demonstrates his view from the use of evidence and who also does not work from the prior assumption of a god. Also, a saint's word isn't worth the clay tablet it's written on.
Laying out one's own morality is the epitomy of arbitrarity in such a field- why should one choose one thing, and not another? Why shouldn't I assume it immoral not to believe pigs can fly? In such a model of morality, even society's opinions are merely agreed ones imposed by historical circumstances- it could, given the right turns in history, believe slavery morally mandatory.
The intricacies of morality and the construction of extraordinarily contrived thought experiments (in an attempt to 'bin' one's morality) is left for philosophers. I just assert that morality has nothing to do with divine instruction, or divine judgement. Remember, I began this discussion only by taking the bait on your question "How can there be a rational morality in a world where there is no God?"
As for the holy texts themselves, I presume you have evidence for this? As said, I have not made up my mind- I would like to see the evidence if you have it.
Evidence for what, do you mean? If you mean evidence for the fact that there are horrible stories in the holy texts then you can easily google that, and similarly for the primitive understanding of agriculture.
In conclusion on this point, you assert empathy must be the root of morality. Not only do many amoral people have empathy (in the sense of understanding others willl act), but empathy as the root of the morality inevitably leads to arbitrary decisions based on emotion alone.
Did you not state above that laying out one's morality is indeed arbitrary? Anyway I just mean that unless you accept that you wouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself, then you cannot possibly have an input on morality.
You may be right on the primitive agricultural attitudes, but I would like to see the evidence. As I understand it, in the classical world historians are forced to rely to documents decades or further after the events- therefore why should the Gospel of Mark (at least) not be included?
I just mean that you shouldn't take the gospels as gospel. They cannot agree on several things (example: Matthew and Luke disagree on the flight into Egypt and the virgin birth, the latter of which is so prevalent in all kinds of mythology and simultaneously so farcical that I don't understand why anyone would take the gospels as gospel).
Why would a religion form around a fictional figure, as opposed to one who actually existed? Why would Paul appeal to witnesses that did not exist? His letters, and Josephus, count as evidence for the existence of Jesus, at least.
Why form a religion at all? I am not asserting that Jesus didn't exist, just that there's a lack of non-biblical evidence. There were many deranged 'prophets' roaming that corner of the globe at the time, and it's highly likely that there was at least one son of a carpenter who etc etc. I don't claim to understand the motives or mind of Paul, but I do think that even if we assume Jesus existed and was actually a nice guy, Paul was the one who subverted it all into a church, which of course Jesus never stated he wanted.
Anyway, I am comparing Christianity to rivals other then athiesm and agnosticism. Compared to Islam (Mohammed never did a miracle), Buddhism (They can be very disciplined, but they don't have evidence to lay on the table for their beliefs), and pagan faiths (no evidence), it fares rather well, I would contend.
Mohammad never performing a miracle (I am taking your word for that) is not an argument in favour of Christianity! I don't assume that Jesus ever performed any miracles either, but in terms of evidence at least we know that Mohammad existed and he has/had a lineage (claims to which can be bought for the right price from your local Imam). Of course I am not an Islamic apologist: the claims of Islam are in considerable part stolen from the old and new testaments and worthy of the same examination and ridicule as any other document which is claimed to be the word of god.
I dispute that Christianity fairs any better than the other major faiths when you are considering likelihood of truth seeing as it has its fair share of supernatural claims for which there is no evidence, and I wouldn't consider the claims to Jesus performing miracles to be in any way supportive of an argument for Christianity's 'correctness'.
