Text 4276, 114 rader
Skriven 2006-07-18 23:08:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4748.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: <uoOdnefuTIBs8CDZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <4omla295r32jn0s9fa1714rofoce6fm1a5@4ax.com>

"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C0E25EF10102E7CBF0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:34:25 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <ZvudnS0Ve7hZyyHZnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C0E105D800DB7367F0284530@news.verizon.net...
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:31:23 -0400, Carl wrote
>>> (in article <46adnVgHwcbTUSfZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Carl Dershem" <dershem@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns98026C2C77A5Fdershemcoxnet@70.169.32.36...
>>>>> "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:_LudnYkxqLvr8SfZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a load of Santorum to me, but ...
>>>>>
>>>>> For those of us who dislike absolutes, and do not believe in any
>>>>> superstition beyond Murphy's Law, it boils down to what some
>>>>> philosophers
>>>>> refer to as "The Golden Rule".  Having a sense of empathy for your
>>>>> fellow
>>>>> beings requires no supernatural oversight.
>>>>
>>>> A wonderful rule to live by,a nd one that I agree with
>>>> whole-heartedly...but
>>>> not an absolute.  Is is possible to commit an act that may kill one
>>>> person
>>>> but saves many others.  Is this a moral act?  Depends on whether you're
>>>> the
>>>> one being killed or one of those saved... in short, it's subjective and
>>>> not
>>>> absolute.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing I'm really trying to say is that "Good" and "Evil",
>>>> "Moral"
>>>> and "Immoral" are subjective in the absence of an ultimate authority to
>>>> provide the absolute, singular, definition.  The only such authority I
>>>> can
>>>> imagine is God.  That's not saying anyone has to believe in a God, just
>>>> that
>>>> not believing means the terms "Evil" or "Bad" then reduce down to 
>>>> nothing
>>>> more than "I don't like it."  <<
>>>
>>> But...even among those who _do_ believe in a G(g)od/dess, there's 
>>> dissent
>>> as
>>> to who and which one, and what each one in particular says.  So with so
>>> much
>>> dissension about the nature of G(g)od/dess, how can you call that an
>>> ultimate
>>> authority?  Unless of course you mean the G(g)od/dess that _you_ happen 
>>> to
>>> worship, which is what people usually mean in discussions like this.  No
>>> disrespect, but it's a big, wide world out there, with lots of beliefs
>>> (and
>>> lack of them).  I don't think it's right to subject everyone else to the
>>> moral code of one particular hand-picked G(g)od/dess.
>>
>> I'm not trying to subject anyone to anything.  I'm not saying that you
>> should worship the way I do. I'm only saying that if there is a God
>> (Christian or not)...then there is an authority to define absolute Good 
>> and
>> Evil.  Any variations from an absolute on our part result from a faulty
>> interpretation or will. In the case of Christians, we learn how far off 
>> we
>> are after death. If I'm wrong I'll either find out the difference is even
>> bigger  than I thought or I'll cease to exist and it won't matter.<<
>
> I think that's a limited view of G(g)od/dess; what if God isn't really
> interested in defining (or monitoring) ultimate Good and Evil?  God may 
> have
> better things to do with his/her time...

If God doesn't isn't interested enough to "define" the correct answer,
then there is no absolute definition for good and evil for that. That's 
fine.

I wasn't suggesting that God had to define an absolute, simply that
if God exists, His/Her/? definition is the only *absolute* definition.
Every other definition seems subjective.
                                                                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)