Text 4405, 129 rader
Skriven 2006-07-19 22:24:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4878.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: <vJmdnYM7S7-7WyPZnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <fvhva21hrtqgbmb0u6fir0qno5hjik9a3n@4ax.com>

"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C0E3E9E8001BBECBF0284530@news.verizon.net...
>>> 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

gods ruling the universe by committee?  Nothing would get done.

Now that you mention it...  :)
                                                                               
                            
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)