In a message dated 6/2/2003 1:18:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, Paddydes writes:
> > Admittedly there is a very fine line of distinction between agnostics and > atheists, and the error is regretted :( > Paddy: Atheists are convinced there is no God, just as theists are convinced there is one or many, depending on their particular theistic religion. Agnostics simply don't know. > > And you now introduce another equation "Even animals have rudiments of morals > tied to their social instincts." in comparison to homo sapiens, I guess :-) > > And so we can go on, ad infinitum! > The equation I introduce, if you want to call it that, has an objective scientific basis. It is not a matter of judgment or opinion, unlike the equation between atheists and criminals. Yes, we can go on ad infinitum, but we would be well-served by knowing the evolutionary basis of morality. > > When I last signed off with "In God We Trust" it was as a citizen of the > United States of America. You, I, Buddhists, et al. in the US notice it each time > a dollar bill changes hands. > > I am aware of attempts to have that bold declaration changed. Unless and > until it does happen, opponents can choose to exercise their option to relocate > anywhere. > While it might be easy to forget it these days, the United States of America is neither a theocracy nor an autocracy. The U.S. constitution guarantees its citizens the freedom to believe and not to believe. The expression "In God We Trust", however bold, is merely an empty figurative expression devoid of any legal or constitutional authority. They are mere words printed on pieces of paper that have independent material value. I have no gripe with harmless traditions such as that. But I strongly oppose a view that asks people to fall in line or leave. This to me is not a very enlightened view, especially in a spiritual sense. Opponents must exercise their option to stay put on U.S. soil and defend against such autocratic assaults on basic constitutional principles. > > PS: Religion, we all know is something personal and spiritual. It can be > argued "there is no need for the emergence of religion," but this world is > religion-centered. > Paddy, you quote me out of context. I said there was no need for the emergence of religion as a pre-condition for the emergence of moral values. I stand by that statement, and am willing to defend it ad infinitum. The fact that this world is religion-centered does not have any bearing on the truth of my statement. Cheers, Santosh ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
