Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 08:31 PM 2/21/2008 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >> Charlie Coleman wrote: >>> At 09:23 PM 2/20/2008 -0300, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > >>> Snipped as asked for ...
> Believe me, I make no claims about being morally superior to someone else. > I've got my problems. But what I'm wondering is where you get your basis of > morals. If all we really have is ourselves as the basis, then who is to say > who is right and wrong? If you need a book, written by who knows, to be able to tell between good and evil... then my friend your character is beyond any help. > If one society says live and let live, and one says > kill everyone that doesn't produce their weight in crops, what determines > if either one is wrong? What HAS determined it? You? Your historians (who are BTW inscribed in your society)? Is USA good or evil? Are you democratic? Then maybe we should take a world vote? Wanna bet on the results? Or maybe you are aristocratic and think your vote should count more than an Italian's? Or elitist and think your vote counts more than an African's? Then what are you doing living in USA in the first place? (this rant is to show you how stupid is your plead for "someone" to determine good or evil) > And then, since there really isn't a right and > wrong, and realizing the world has limited resources, it would seem the > "logical" or "moral" choice would keep the population at acceptable levels > by any means possible. Would it? If there was no religion nor any other authority besides your own self, would you really think that way? It's a serious question, every man should ask it in order to know his own soul. > And since there really is no basis for right and > wrong, the nation or society that had the most strength to ensure its > survival should immediately take steps to make sure it is the one that gets > to remain. Isn't that Dubya's politics? Then why are you so shocked? > > But what would I do if I became an atheist? Hmm... I've never really > thought about it much. There would be a lot of baggage I'd have to look at. > I mean all the ethics and such that I've studied would be meaningless. Yes, you would have to begin to think and decide for yourself. Brrrr... > The > only true driving factor would be me and my family's survival, happiness, > etc. Caring about other people would get put at a much lower priority > unless they could do something for me. There you go. That's the real you. That's the real height of your moral character and your spirit. But please don't go around thinking every body has your shortcomings, it's just not so. > Then, I'd have to consider that if > everyone else was thinking the same, that I better prepare to defend > myself: just as you mentioned, if someone gets more than he needs he is > taking from someone else. And that's just what your NRA preaches. Now you are thinking like Mikey. Maybe I SHOULD put you all anglos in the same bag. > In fact, with unlimited population growth, if > people get JUST what they need, they may be taking from someone else. All > that is wild speculation though since I've never been an atheist. Which is > why I'm asking you these type questions: to try and understand how an > atheist thinks. Well if you were an atheist you would be a lousy person. Luckily not all atheists are of your condition. > >>> It would seem justified since finite resources mean >>> limited ability to support population. Why are you so against the US >>> invading other countries, you should be grateful we're thinning out >>> populations. I mean heck, you should be starting wars too. Maybe your >>> country will get wiped out but the upside is more resources for the >>> victors. Doesn't that make our species stronger in the end? So why don't >>> you believe that war is a good thing? I guess you just lack understanding of natural selection. It just does not work like a war, it's not that limited. > Sound a bell? Hmmm, not really. I was asking why you don't believe war is a > good thing. I personally don't believe war is a good thing. It has to > happen sometimes, but it's not good. I don't think it's a good thing. What's more, I ask myself why you think it's inevitable and what it says about your soul. The acceptance of the inevitability of evil... mmmm... god will not be happy with you. > That's a little off the question I asked I think. So, do you have an > explanation of why wars to thin out populations is a bad thing? Yes, easy. War is the last resource of those stupid enough to believe in last resources. If you half have a brain you'll find many ways to thin populations that work much better than wars. But hey! Then you would have to THINK. And without a book to guide your thoughts! God forbid! _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
