Text 4123, 84 rader
Skriven 2006-07-18 00:08:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4596.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Carl Dershem to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <Xns9803B903546Cdershemcoxnet@70.169.32.36>
@REPLY: <4omla295r32jn0s9fa1714rofoce6fm1a5@4ax.com>
"Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:46adnVgHwcbTUSfZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com: 

> 
> "Carl Dershem" <dershem@cox.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns98026C2C77A5Fdershemcoxnet@70.169.32.36...
>> "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:_LudnYkxqLvr8SfZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.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.
>>
>> Sounds like a load of Santorum to me, but ...
>>
>> For those of us who dislike absolutes, and do not believe in any
>> superstition beyond Murphy's Law, it boils down to what some
>> philosophers refer to as "The Golden Rule".  Having a sense of
>> empathy for your fellow beings requires no supernatural oversight.
> 
> A wonderful rule to live by,a nd one that I agree with
> whole-heartedly...but not an absolute.  Is is possible to commit an
> act that may kill one person but saves many others.  Is this a moral
> act?  Depends on whether you're the one being killed or one of those
> saved... in short, it's subjective and not absolute.
> 
> The only thing I'm really trying to say is that "Good" and "Evil",
> "Moral" and "Immoral" are subjective in the absence of an ultimate
> authority to provide the absolute, singular, definition.  The only
> such authority I can imagine is God.  That's not saying anyone has to
> believe in a God, just that not believing means the terms "Evil" or
> "Bad" then reduce down to nothing more than "I don't like it." 

And the point I was trying to make is that a lot of people claim that 
"their* authority (whichever god they believe in) trumps everyone else's, 
which is just hogwash when there's no objective evidence.

And for those who, like the aforementioned politician, say that "without 
god they'd [fill in any number of horrendous actions]" they need a lot of 
psychiatric care.  Being responsible for yourself requires no deity.  
being aware of your actions and their consequences is, in many ways, in 
opposition to many religions, which encourage their followers to turn 
their lives over to some theoretical deity.

Good and Evil are theoretical constructs, concievable only to sentient 
beings, but there *are* objective measures, including the one I quoted 
above.  Abandoning such in favor of the word of someone whose vested 
interests are obvious (which, in my experience, includes the vast 
majority of clerics, priests, shamans, politicians and other confidence 
artists) is, as far as I can see, foolish.

Then again, I prefer philosophy, which is at least openly debatable, to 
religion, which is not.  "Belief" and "Knowledge" are NOT equal.

cd
-- 
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T".  I like Earl 
Grey.
                                                                               
               
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)