Text 4190, 96 rader
Skriven 2006-07-18 11:19:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4663.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C0E2605301033AC9F0407530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY: <fvhva21hrtqgbmb0u6fir0qno5hjik9a3n@4ax.com>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:51:15 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <G5qdnYzOEPkrxyHZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.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." <<

That's true only if your flavor of God is interested in being a cosmic 
referee.  I'm just not sure G(g)od/dess is all that interested in doing that. 
 If all God wanted was a well-behaved constituency, why did s/he give us free 
will?

Amy
                                 
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)