Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would
cause me
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:48 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would
cause me
Ritu wrote:
Julia wrote:
D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on
this list.
Query: Can you list the translations you own? I'm just curious. A
no answer will be accepted graciously.
I was saving up qone uestion for you:
How many translations would Fool need to
On 9/24/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By regulars, I think he means people who post frequently.
How frequently is frequent enough, I don't know.
So I don't know how many he means.
Julia
Well, we can find out simply by asking each poster whether they get
enough
On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would
cause me misery, I know that it's an
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action would
cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't perpetrate
upon another.
The Fool wrote:
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a
least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
correct. Some
Julia wrote:
D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on
this list.
Query: Can you list the translations you own? I'm just curious. A
no answer will be accepted graciously.
I was saving up qone uestion for you:
How many translations would Fool need to own for
I said:
I was saving up qone uestion for you:
That was 'one question' btw... :)
Ritu
GCU Off to Bed
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 11:50 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
The Fool wrote:
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a
least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people
At 11:48 AM Tuesday 9/19/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I
base my ethical decisions on my ability to
empathize. If I know a given action would
cause me misery, I know that it's
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an
abortion is just as good as any other choice.
Ever had to make a real triage decision? A life-and-death one?
On 9/19/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is precisely my point.Thanks, Nick.
But... oh, never mind.
Nick
--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:33PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists
are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied
with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean do
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks,
Nick.
I may use that in the future.
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an
abortion is just as good as any other choice.
Ever had to make a real triage decision? A life-and-death one?
John, there are *no* good choices in a triage decision. That's
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs jredelfs@ wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
Wow. Finally a view that really
On 15/09/2006, at 3:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs jredelfs@ wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage
On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick.
I may use that in the future.
Too bad its not true.
Consider the website of this abortion provider - other
On 9/12/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnR said:
I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in
history, but it is my
understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe
following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the
population
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 9/14/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision. At
worst, it is murder. Virtue doesn't appear
On 14/09/2006, at 8:59 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/14/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
] The Fool wrote:
] E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
] Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of
] shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
]
] Are we
On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does,
or a
least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you want your brothers and sisters to die in large numbers through
famine, pestilence and war? Or have you just failed to write clearly
enough to convey what you really mean?
I would rather my brothers and sisters, the whole human race,
On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John W Redelfs wrote:
So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally,
there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of
abortion and
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John W Redelfs wrote:
So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally,
there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
effected by widespread
John W Redelfs wrote:
Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the
growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect.
And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa -
to have a significant effect.
Well, when you consider that mankind has been
Damon Agretto wrote:
Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75
years...
I've heard some people mention those Religious Wars as The Second
Hundred Years Wars, and the sequence of France-England Wars
that began in c.1700 and ended in 1815 as The Third Hundred
Years
JohnR said:
I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in
history, but it is my
understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe
following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the
population of
Europe for many decades.
The Hundred Years War
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:54:38
To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote:
Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the
growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect
.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
-Original Message-
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:04:04
To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Damon Agretto wrote
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:21 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Dan said:
Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption
On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
And you have made an unambiguously personal attack there... which is
contrary to our community's guidelines.
I'm inclined to be less tolerant of personal attacks by people who
participate
On 9/8/06, Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists
get into the ring to slug it out now? If we are, I can bring popcorn if
someone else will bring the beers!
We had a serious shortage of list managers starting
At 12:52 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
And you have made an unambiguously personal attack there... which is
contrary to our community's guidelines.
I'm inclined to be less
On 8 Sep 2006 at 0:55, The Fool wrote:
A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more.
Yes, well done, you can misreprisent unrelated quotes from it very
well. Seen it. And?
Unless there's something you'd like to tell us about yourself.
*grins*
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
In a message dated 9/6/2006 7:58:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Upon what do atheists base
their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of
the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the
ultimate good, biologically
In a message dated 9/6/2006 9:32:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
One of trickiest issues for the notion of god is whether god knows there is
At 04:28 PM Friday 9/8/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
I'll stop by Joe's Artificial Organ and Taco Stand on the way.
I think I've eaten there. Or at least somewhere that got their food
from there . . .
Barf Maru
-- Ronn! :)
___
At 01:55 AM Friday 9/8/2006, The Fool wrote:
A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more.
B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life.
C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will.
D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are
Matt Grimaldi wrote:
As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has
definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has* been
trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as hoping it will
stop on its own is not faring very well at this point.
Just to clear this up, the
JohnR said:
So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally,
there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
effected by
widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth
control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action
would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't
perpetrate upon another.
...unless you've asked
On 08/09/2006, at 7:54 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist
does, or a
least not as much that is correct.
Yes, that's clear.
But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
John W Redelfs wrote:
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an
atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But
neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious
people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things
you cannot understand
Ritu said:
That's not necessarily true. Belief is not a prerequisite for
understanding words on a paper. While the scriptures cannot be accepted
without belief, understanding them is a simpler task. And all the latter
requires are tools of basic comprehension, further study, and reasearch.
John W Redelfs wrote:
So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there
needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be
effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of
abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and
Rich said:
I think JohnR's argument is that belief breathes the fire
into the words and unless you believe you don't experience
that fire and so don't truly understand.
But aren't the words, or the ideas behind them, supposed to breathe the
fire? I can go as far as a suspension of
The Fool wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit around
here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout theists
get into the ring to slug it out
On 08/09/2006, at 3:14 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
The Fool wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit
around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
Charlie said:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it -
there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
*g*
Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just
fine tonight, but will feel like dying tomorrow morning. :)
Ritu
Jim Sharkey wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit
around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and
devout theists get into the ring to
Alberto wrote
And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the
living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat?
Alberto,
If you don't want to host the party, just say so. We'll just find
another venue. There's no need to rustle up a gruesome menu
Ritu
GCU
On 8 Sep 2006, at 1:33PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie said:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it -
there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
*g*
Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just
fine tonight, but will feel like
Charlie Bell wrote:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it - there's
no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of course, you're going to
be sorry tomorrow, but as long as you accept that going in...
Jim
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists and devout
theists get into the ring to slug it out now? If we are, I can bring
popcorn if someone else will bring the beers!
And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the
On 08/09/2006, at 5:15 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it
- there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of course,
you're going to be sorry
Hi!
Hello, HELLO... earth calling ethereal c
On Sep 7, 2006, at 10:00 PM, John W Redelfs wrote:
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism,
because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat
eaters
Warren,
Brilliant rebuttal. Your examples and premise work for me!
{no further comment below}
-Jonathan-
On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
There's a bit of convolution here; before a meaningful discussion can
happen in some areas I think some of it has to be untangled.
On
Jim Sharkey wrote:
] The Fool wrote:
] E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
] Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of
] shit around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
]
] Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
] and devout theists
I'll stop by Joe's Artificial Organ and Taco Stand on the way.
- Original Message
From: Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2006 5:51:01 AM
Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Alberto wrote
And who's bringing the fried
On 8 Sep 2006, at 10:25PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
As a list, we have not dropped our guidelines The Fool has
definitely over-reacted. On the other hand, William *has*
been trolling pretty heavily, and the strategy known as
hoping it will stop on its own is not faring very well
at this point.
Rich wrote:
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why?
Isn't might makes right basically the religious position?
Uh, no. At least not in the religion I was born into. We do have a
saying which translates into 'Truth always wins' but that is never
William T Goodall asked:
Richard Baker wrote:
If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions
differ.
Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
I guess so, unless he himself has a God
William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006, at 4:13PM, Brother John wrote:
Richard Baker wrote:
If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions
differ.
Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals,
so that you can define what is good and what is evil. If the
goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity,
or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies
is evil.
But it
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a
rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just
a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.
John W. Redelfs
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having
a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is
just a form of holier-than-thou
On 7 Sep 2006, at 4:56PM, Brother John wrote:
In the absence of God or gods, why would one goal be preferable to
any other? I might have one goal. You might have another. If they
are contradictory, then the strongest man's goal is the right one.
Or in other words, the concept of right
JohnR said:
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is
just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists.
Yeah? Well, I'm vegetarian for aesthetic reasons and I really don't
much care who else is or isn't vegetarian as long as they don't try
to make me eat meat.
And
Charlie said:
Rich, atheist and vegetarian.
Me, atheist and omnivorous.
Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat.
You overlook the obvious fact that I am holier than you are.
Rich
GCU Saintly
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to
having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet.
On 07/09/2006, at 8:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to
having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
Brother John wrote:
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet.
I once recall reading something about how the vegetarian proteins are
easier for humans to assimilate as compared to the proteins found in
meat. Does anyone else have ay recollection of something like this?
Vegetarianism
There's a bit of convolution here; before a meaningful discussion can
happen in some areas I think some of it has to be untangled.
On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:58 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why?
Succinctly, if it were a
On 9/7/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having
a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet.
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism,
because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat
eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets
into plants used as human food than into
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a
least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
correct. Some things you
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that
philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base
their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of
the
On 6 Sep 2006, at 12:58PM, John W Redelfs wrote:
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why
would that
philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do
atheists base
their morality? I've
JohnR said:
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why?
Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe
in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those
are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are
On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary.
Real Me Maru
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web :
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
DanM said:
I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the
transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed
by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that
exists apart from our perception.
But that seems like an especially
Richard Baker wrote:
If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ.
Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe.
John W. Redelfs
On 6 Sep 2006, at 4:13PM, Brother John wrote:
Richard Baker wrote:
If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions
differ.
Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
I guess so, unless he
William T Goodall wrote:
And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And
does God's God's God's God have a God?
GEB flashback
Not necessarily what I needed today, but it's not entirely bad. Might
even be calming, which I *could* use today.
Julia
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
DanM said:
I think the most critical question involved
John W Redelfs wrote:
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why
would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon
what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to
On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:18PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than
that.
Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the
transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans,
then one
can reach some general
On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:33PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists
are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied
with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean do good or God will punish you.
On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:31, Richard Baker wrote:
Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe
Nope. At least, not for Jews.
in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those are
evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil. (And
Again,
On 6 Sep 2006 at 14:43, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at
least, basically in the same position as us atheists?
I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary.
Uh-huh. So
Andrew said:
Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for
righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to
be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the
Land is the Law.
So is that an argument from the authority of the Bible, an
Dan said:
Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than
that.
Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the
transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans,
then one
can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at
On 06/09/2006, at 10:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.
Hope that's satire.
Charlie
___
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad
philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that
philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists
base
their morality? I've never been
On 6 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Richard Baker wrote:
Andrew said:
Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for
righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to
be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the
Land is the Law.
So is
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
