Text 4155, 114 rader
Skriven 2006-07-18 10:46:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4628.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: <G5qdnYzOEPkrxyHZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <fvhva21hrtqgbmb0u6fir0qno5hjik9a3n@4ax.com>

"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C0E1051E00DB47BEF0284530@news.verizon.net...
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:22:24 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <tL2dnbDOhfCvVyfZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
>> news:8fvkb21orrsaf2a3aub4nijcv4p0k1ldf2@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:42:28 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <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.
>>>
>>> Easy.
>>>
>>> Laws.
>>>
>>> Man-made laws for men. A consensus reached by our elected
>>> representatives on our behalf, enforced by us on ourselves.
>>>
>>> Zero deity involvement whatsoever.
>>>
>>> And let's face it, to any dispassionate analysis, that's pretty much
>>> what the fables we call "The Bible", "The Quran" and others are anyway
>>> - a shopping list of laws we should have, written by men to be read by
>>> men.
>>>
>>> It's just a shame there was so much mumbojumbo associated with them.
>>>
>>
>> Laws change all the time; there's nothing absolute about them.  Even when
>> the law is unambigious it is applied situationally and is always subject 
>> to
>> jury nullification.
>>
>> I was not saying that you can't try to define good or evil without the
>> concept of God, you simply can't define an ***absolute*** concept of 
>> them; a
>> good that is universally good and not subject to context and the will of 
>> the
>> majority.<<
>
> Wow.  I really disagree with that, and I do consider myself a person of
> faith/spirituality (albeit not one of the major ones that people are 
> always
> screaming about).  How can you imply that God is imperative within a
> discussion of what is good or evil, when not everyone believes in God, or
> even in the same gods/goddesses?  It's kind of an arrogant position.

If there is a God, then God is the ultimate authority of Good and Evil, 
because His/Her/? opinion counts more than mine.  A definition of "Good" 
might be "according to "The Plan." It may be something else entirely.  I 
don't know, and I can't know unless God tells me directly (which hasn't 
happened). It may be something else, but if there is a God, then He/She/??? 
get's to set "The Law."

I'm not specifying which God.  I'm not even saying there is a God.  I'm 
defining the only possibility of a complete, unambiguous, absolute 
definition of Good, Moral, etc.  If you think there's a God, then you have 
to act according to your interpretation of what you think is the "Grand 
Definition of Good."  If you do (whatever that definition is), then I have a 
great deal of respect for you and your faith.  If you don't believe in a 
God, then you live your life without an absolute..ok...then pick the best 
definition of "Good" you can find and run with it...and I respect that too.

I'm not making any judgement of anyone's faith whatsoever...and if it seems 
that way then I have failed miserably in trying to explain my view.


>
> If you believe in any G(g)od/dess, then you believe that G(g)od/dess gave 
> us
> free will.  If that free will wasn't for making laws to live by, then I 
> don't
> know _what_ it was for.

I don't see how my view conflicts with that in any way.

>
> And, this works out neatly for those who don't believe in G(g)od/dess, as
> well, because they're going to want to use their free will to make those
> laws, anyway.
                                                                               
                         
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)