In order to elevate the rebellion from a purely economic reaction to oppressive rule, which may have not ignited all members of the colonies but only those with economic interests to be furthered, the thinkers had to create a broader appeal.
You leave out another important aspect of the need for a higher authority. It's a very simple one. Why would you vigilantly uphold a contract if you could, with impunity, dishonor that contract and somehow profit from it? More specifically, our military officers (including the commander-in-chief) take an oath before their term of service begins. Upon what does that oath rest? Certainly it does not rest upon the trust between a vast mass of people and one man few of them have ever met or even seen in person. The oath rests on whatever God that officer prays to. The oath is taken on whatever faith the officer holds, and his or her fidelity to that faith is our only assurance that the oath will be upheld. Again, we must have faith that they don't have their fingers crossed behind their back. God (of whatever flavor) has been the keeper of our faith throughout the years, and has proven to be effective as long as people's belief remained strong. Of course, a few defectors in high places could easily take advantage of that belief, but I'll get back to that in a minute. Most monotheists believe that none of their ill deeds will escape His sight and so even when they are solitary and in reality absolutely free, they are expected to honor their commitments or be punished automatically and ruthlessly by an unseen, omnipresent observer. And so they often do honor their contracts.
Now back to the defectors. In most monarchies, the monarch rules by a divine right or a mandate from heaven or some other connection to a deity. The deity is still nominally above the ruler, but rather than being
equal with the people in the eyes of the deity, the ruler was
chosen by the deity to be His ambassador to the people, usually because of some innate quality that elevates the chosen above others. You can see how such a position might be exploited, since the deity doesn't often speak in the common language and so the people must look to the monarch for His mandate. If God creates all men equal, then such a problem (ideally) does not arise. You could say that-through 5 millennium of bloody revolt and "nasty, brutish and short" lives-God has told us that all men are created equal. I call it cultural evolution and I believe that it is part of human nature, but that's just me.
I take your point that some people need to think a creator is watching them to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow. But I wasn't arguing from a deterrent position, I was really thinking of it as a sort of encouragement.
But as I said, I take your point that having a God around makes the job of persuaders much easier. Ya can't take on omniscience, it gets you every time.
The cultural evolution idea is interesting. Are we moving to a social existence that allows complete expression of humanity without restriction?
Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...
Isn't it cute? Why they're vastly more intelligent than the theists... they can do what is otherwise absolutely uncalled for; what is wholly absurd... why they adhere to that which serves no purpose what so ever... using their own stated reasoning...
LOL... Classic!
Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?
Be specific...
I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...
In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.
So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?
Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.
So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.
But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace...
So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?
Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.
She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.
But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.
But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.
