Text 4369, 105 rader
Skriven 2006-07-19 14:45:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4842.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.C0E3E9E8001BBECBF0284530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY: <fvhva21hrtqgbmb0u6fir0qno5hjik9a3n@4ax.com>
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:04:42 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <ILednQU4JPGB6iDZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.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. <<

Carl, I don't think it's a matter of my not understanding what you're trying 
to say; I think we just have different ideas about it.

>> 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. <<

Agreed.

>> 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".  <<

And, agreed.

>>> 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. <<

Okay, got it.

>> 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. <<

Oh, if _only_ people realized that.  And also, the problem with divine texts 
is that people continue to interpret them literally even if they are so dated 
as to be useless!

>> 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. <<

Sure, I can agree with that.  Assuming there's one deity who reigns supreme 
over all other deities.  I mean, I imagine in some pantheons it could end up 
more as a committee thing...  :-D

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