Text 3999, 66 rader
Skriven 2006-07-16 19:30:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4472.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <_LudnYkxqLvr8SfZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <4omla295r32jn0s9fa1714rofoce6fm1a5@4ax.com>

<kruegerb76@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1153058207.756249.184380@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Carl wrote:
>> If there is no God, then there is no higher philosophy; all of the "Whys"
>> become personal and as such they are all subjective because there are no
>> absolutes to the question of "Why?"
>
> Perhaps not for you, personally, but what makes you assume others have
> this same limitation?   Of course there can be a higher philosophy
> without a "God".
>
> You seem to be saying the only objective (and non-personal) way to get
> an answer to all the "whys" is to believe in a god.

I don't know how you'd define an absolute moral "good" or "evil" without 
one.
I'm curious as to how you do it.


>
>>From what I"ve seen, however, there is as much subjectifying of the
> "why question"  in the devout as there is in any other person.   You
> might prefer what you conclude are some of the "why answers" to what an
> atheist might conclude, but you're both subjectifying it for the simple
> reason that there is no other way to do it.  Unless you sincerely
> believe God came down and had a personal, detailed chat with you.  :)

I do not assume that my (or any religious person's) interpretation of the 
"Why" answers is correct.  I'm fairly certain we're all wrong actually.  If 
there is a God, after death we'll be able to compare our notions against an 
absolute standard though.

>
>> >>>>Science can't answer why you should be nice to the person you meet on
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>street that you're unlikely to ever see again.
>
> How did we shift from philosophy into science?
> for one am NOT saying
> that science is even _trying_ to answer the "philosophical why
> questions".   You shifted what you were talking about, here.  From
> "it's impossible for there to be answers to the 'why question' unless
> there is a God" to "science can't solve the 'philosphical why
> question'.

That was the very nature of the conversation that I was having with Josh.
Sorry if I didn't mentally jump contexts very well; I just finished my 
response to Josh.

> I would tend to agree.  I think only philosophies can
> answer philosphical questions, and even they tend to be slippery at
> best.  (Just how is "I think, therefore I am" any more valid at proving
> my reality than "I feel, therefore I am"?)

Well, I've klnown a few people that have medicated themselves senseless. :)
                                                     
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)