--- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...Hopefully this dialogue will educate the rest of >us, who may be misinformed if not ignorant of atheism >or religion. Hope this exchange will educate me and > others who may follow this thread.................. >
Gilbert, It is unlikely that you or I or anybody else will be educated by idle banter on Goanet. The best you can hope for is some comic relief. And I am talking about genuine spontaneous humor not some silly disguised posts containing fake smileys. > >You surely find virtue in being a neurologist and a >researcher. > No, I dont find any virtue in being what I am, a brain scientist. Nobodys profession makes him/her virtuous. > >That does not make you smarter or superior than one >in another field of medicine. > But dont you think mailing list historians striving to revise history for righteous ideological reasons, are superior in some way to professional historians? > >But it does give you pride and an incentive to strive >to do an even better job, which is what "Belief" is >all about. > No. People believe in different real or imaginary things for different real or imaginary reasons or for no reason at all. > >The chronic bebdo when he is sober is likely to >say, "There is no God". That's because God(religion) >demands self-control and a moral value system. > Why dont you conduct a survey of bebde to find out if this is a sensible belief of yours or not? Please show me your raw data on this. I have never met a bebdo who said what you are saying. My old random survey includes about 20 of them, all of whom were admitted in a hospital for variable lengths of time for hepatic cirrhosis. > >The bebdo, and others like him, who do not want to >live the strict norms of their religion, may believe >in "no God" / atheist as a convenient rationale. > What is the religion of this bebdo? Does his religion impose a moral ban on the consumption of alcohol? > > There is no compelling reason to lead a moral life >if one does not believe in a moral "supreme being" >with no consequences during or after this life. Call >it "fear" that makes believers be good. Yet, if >that's what it takes, so be it. > But raw data indicates that people who do not believe in a supreme being such as atheists, Buddhists, Jains, agnostics, skeptics, etc, commit no more crimes, are no more immoral, support no more illegal and immoral wars, perform no more legal abortions, use no more condoms and contraceptives, engage in no more marital and extra-marital sexual relationships, support no more tortures and executions, file no more divorces, and become no more addicted to drugs and alcohol than people who believe in one or more moral supreme beings. > >What is the moral force to influence or make a non->believer live within the moral norms of their >society? > The raw data indicates that it is the survival value of innate goodness for each individual and for the species as a whole. Rational morality is based on the practical notion of the greatest good of the greatest number. > >I say, with due respect, "You live in a la..la >land.":=)) > You say all kinds of things without having any raw data to back them. Who then is living in La La Land? > >Even with / in spite of the moral force / religion, >there are bebdos, ani tea bair more bamtulos.:=)) >How come our prisons are filled to over capacity? > Please answer your own question. How come? > > Alcoholism is not the only intoxicating agent that >may lead one to be a non-believer. So are drugs, >power, wealth, knowledge, greed. And then there are >individuals who suffer from Delusional Grandeur - >pathological or pseudo intellectual.:=)) > Do you have raw data to support these comical claims? > > A sensible atheist like a sensible believer is one >who for a minimum lives the moral norms of society >they belong to. And perhaps tries to be even better. > Arent you contradicting your earlier assertion? You told us earlier that there is no compelling reason to be moral without believing in a moral supreme being. So how come both atheists and believers now have to be similarly sensible in order to lead a moral life? > > Once again if there is no philosophy to life, there >is no guidance to rationalize one's thoughts >consistently. One ends with the situation, as an >example, "I believe in abortion but not in female >feticide". > How about an immoral philosophy such as that of Charles Manson, and rationalization of bad behavior? And why is it good to have a large following? Cheers, Santosh _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org