Paddy wrote: > >Of course I was aware that you are an avowed athiest on Goanet but >certainly wasn't equating anything. >
I am not an atheist. I only claim not to have any knowledge of the existence of a supernatural being. But I respect the right of those who claim to have such knowledge without being convinced they do. > >I was simply expounding the fallacy of such a theory. It is a well >established fact that had it not been for religious or social >restraints, homo sapiens would be no different from counterparts in >the animal kingdom. There might is right, with the survival of the >fittest instinct :( > There is no fallacy in George's theory. A belief in God is not required to be considered a moral person. Period. The emergence of social structure and restraints is important, but there is no need for the emergence of religion. Even animals have rudiments of morals tied to their social instincts. Elephants do not kill their own, and they grieve the death of a family member for a very long time, for instance, by holding its bones in its trunk while assuming a solemn posture. You are simply wrong about what you consider as established facts. I think Floriano's following quote is more on the mark. " In whatever we do, each one of us are morally justified in our own way through our own conscience. The problem is the conscience. It is universal and knows right from wrong." > >In God We Trust: > A substantial population of the world doesn't, including some who are very religious and spiritual, such as the Buddhists. Cheers, Santosh ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
