"..."Revealed", no, but "innate" or "intellectually arrived at" are both intellectually defensible from an atheistic point of view." - Taylor
Ahh, thank you for your view Taylor! This is what I was wanting to get into. OK, for now I’ll accept what you say about ‘revealed’. However, I may bring it up again later. >From your point of view Taylor, while I understand the notion of ‘defensible’, I’d prefer to know what you believe is the foundation of your own notion of ‘being good’ is. And, I will add that I’d like to know more than it is what you were taught, which could return to the idea of being revealed. IF you can address specifically either/both of innate and intellectually arrived at too, that would accelerate the discussion somewhat. Thanks again for delving into this Taylor and, hopefully helping us both to further clarify our thinking. On Nov 14, 10:18 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<not quite an atheist's point of view is it? >> > > It's certainly compatible with it. Morality doesn't need a god to > justify it. > > <<many/most atheists do not embrace the notion of an innate, revealed > nor intellectually arrived at ethos. >> > > "Revealed", no, but "innate" or "intellectually arrived at" are both > intellectually defensible from an atheistic point of view. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
