At 04:42 PM 3/11/2008 -0300, Ricardo Araoz wrote: >Charlie Coleman wrote: ... > > 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. ... You didn't answer the question. But it sounds like you're telling me that you just "know" what is right and wrong. And so, the headhunters in the jungle also know what is right and wrong too, right? The fact that they live by cannibalism is "right" because they know it to be right. Correct?
> > 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)? ... >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) You haven't answered my question. Or maybe by not answering you are saying there is no answer. In other words, there really is no right and wrong. It's whatever a particular group or society determines for themselves at a particular time. Is that what you're trying to say? > > 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. For myself, I would hope I would want to get along with others. But then I'd have to realize there would be those people that attempt to take from me instead of working for themselves (I believe the history of the world has enough empirical evidence to support that supposition). So, in order to survive, I imagine the logical outcome would be one of war/conflict. > > 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? Are you so afraid of asking yourself the hard questions that you have to continually divert to things outside the topic? > > 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... Again, I'm trying to be honest and you retort with slurs. But I suppose you're response to this is that you actually believe there is no basis for ethics apart from what a person decides for themselves. > > 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. I'm just trying to be logical. You still haven't explained your basis for what is "good." Your response is that you just "know" it. So, if that is true, applied to all human beings, then you should recognize that there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" since so many people behave completely differently. Headhunters will kill and eat you. Christians may try to convert you by talking. Muslims may kill you if you don't convert to Islam. So your argument that people just "know" what is right and wrong doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. > > 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. So, for example, if you did come to the conclusion that everyone else is only out for their own survival, and that they would immediately kill you if they thought they needed your belongings/land/whatever, how would you respond/prepare? > > 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. Ok, I'll agree I'm glad I'm not an atheist and I don't want to be a lousy person. Can you explain to me why you believe you should do "good?" > >>> 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 ... >I guess you just lack understanding of natural selection. It just does >not work like a war, it's not that limited. Hmm. I thought the way natural selection worked was that the "fittest" or the ones better "attuned" to their environment would survive and the others would die out (either killed by the stronger, or by the environment). Given the empirical evidence of the human race, war seems to be the natural environment. Is that incorrect? > > 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. Ok. We're in agreement that war is not a good thing. But I base the inevitability of war on the history of the human race. So I suppose that says my "soul" is willing to look at the actual facts, no matter how unpleasant. > > 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! Actually, I'm afraid you're the one who has not been thinking all along. You seem to believe that everyone else would be just like you if there were no religion. And that they'd all just know right from wrong and the world would be a great place. And, so far at least, you've given no evidence to support your claim or even attempt to explain your reasoning. You won't answer direct questions and you attempt to divert the discussion with bizarre off-the-topic statements. And, last but not least, you just want to call everyone that doesn't believe like you "stupid." -Charlie _______________________________________________ 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.
