Text 4347, 105 rader
Skriven 2006-07-19 11:37:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4820.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: <ILednQU4JPGB6iDZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <fvhva21hrtqgbmb0u6fir0qno5hjik9a3n@4ax.com>

"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C0E2605301033AC9F0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:51:15 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <G5qdnYzOEPkrxyHZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
<snip>
>>>> 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?


<banging head on keyboad>

I fear I'm not articulate enough to express what I'm trying to say.
One more time...and then I give up.

*IF* there's a God, He/She/? can set the rules....or, He/She/? can "let the 
marbles fly" and see where they go go.  He/She/? isn't compelled to define 
anything, but if they want to set a rule, it's as absolute as they want it 
to be, and as absolute as they CAN be.  Humans can define any situational 
morals and definitions that we want... but they're all subjective.  That's 
fine too as long as someone that is more certain about their interpretation 
than they should be doesn't try to force their certainty down my throat as 
an absolute.  Subjective definitions of good and bad are necessary to help 
define compassionate laws and and standards of behavior (and have 
unfortunately defined the opposite too), but when I started in on the topic 
I was only trying to say that our definitions must be subjective because 
humans don't have any authority to define an absolute good or bad.  Almost 
any definition of absolute good or bad can be responded to by "Sez who?" 
The best we can do is majority (or the most powerful) sets the rules until 
something comes along to change them.  In the absence of an absolute...when 
the definition are fuzzy and situational, I don't see how good and bad could 
be described in terms of science...in particular mathematics...without the 
variable (I called it 'z') simply being "Whatever we think at the time".  I 
don't think science works that way.  Josh disagreed with me.  Fair enough.

I don't see how we (humans) CAN define an *absolute* definition of good and 
evil, moral and immoral, right and wrong, etc.  I think the only being that 
could would be God...if He/She/? wants to.

Even people that believe that <pick your personal favorite divine text> 
defines an absolue should realize that it only defines something that people 
interpret as an absolute definition.  Since there are so many people that 
have defined the same texts differently, clearly the interpretations are 
subjective.

I'm not saying there is a God, must be a God, that God HAS defined an 
absolute, will hold anyone up to that standard, etc.  I'm just saying that 
God would be the only authority I can think of that could define an 
absolute.

Time for me to bail on this; I'm not getting any better at explaining myself 
and I'm obviously not doing a good enough job.
Sorry about that.


Carl
bool m_bUnderstood != !(sMeant==sHeard) ? true : !true;

sMeant PUSH
sHeard PUSH
=
NOT
?
NOT
POP
(as close as I recall in Forth)
                                                                               
       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)