------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, as we can see, religion does not give us a rock
> solid moral code that has survived unchanged for
> thousands of years, as was erroneously stated in
> this forum. The post below and the religious texts
> themselves provide us with ample facts in support of
> this contention. These facts are as follows:
>
> 1. Many ancient practices described in religious
> texts have now been regarded as barbaric and
> immoral, and have therefore been abolished by all
> modern secular nations.
>
Mario asks:
>
It is patently absurd for unorganized individual
atheists to judge the rock solid moral codes provided
by most religions by those few renegades who failed to
comply, while having a moral code that is built on
sand.
>
It is just as absurd for the atheists to paint all
religions with the same brush if any one of them has
done or does something that Santosh considers wrong.
>
In the meantime unorganized individual atheists have a
home-made moral code, if they have one at all, subject
only to personal convenience, with no societal or
exterior checks and balances other than the law.
>
Santosh writes:
>
> 2. The sanitized and abridged example of a common
> moral code of two major world religions has been
> shown to have been conveniently revised to generate
> three versions.
>
Mario replies:
>
This is a patently false statement. The three
versions of the Ten Commandments that Santosh is slyly
speaking of here all cover the same precepts, and are
just numbered differently.
>
Santosh writes:
>
> 3. No rational moral basis has been provided for the
> first four commandments of one of the revised
> versions of this flexible code.
>
Mario replies:
>
This assertion is also false as the archives will
show.
>
Santosh writes:
>
> 4. The argument that this religious moral code is
> immoral because of the associated prescription of
> death penalty, including death by stoning, for its
> violation, has not been refuted.
>
Mario replies:
>
Another patently false statement. The abhorrent
practices cited by Santosh have long since been
abolished by those who may have engaged in them. If
any religion still engages in a particular practice
does not invalidate all religions and their rock solid
moral codes, while leaving each unorganized individual
atheist to their own convenient precepts, which may or
not be any good.
>
Santosh writes:
>
> 5. A new situational moral revision is presented,
> one that offers an unsubstantiated blanket denial
> of the existence of the penalty of death, in the
> face of explicit statements that can be seen even
> in modern revised versions of the ancient religious
> text in question.
>
Mario replies:
>
This is another false statement. Any current
existence of a death penalty has everything to do with
law and nothing to do with religion in most civilized
cultures and countries. If one religion still
supports a particular practice does not invalidate all
religions and their rock solid moral codes, while
leaving each unorganized individual atheist to their
own convenient precepts, which may or not be any good.
>
Santosh writes:
>
> 6. The convenient denial of the amply documented
> death penalty leaves one to wonder what sort of
> adverse consequence takes its place in the modern
> sanitized revision of this pliable religious moral
> code. For example, what personal or public
> consequence awaits thou if thou "make unto thee any
> graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is
> in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
> or that is in the water under the earth"?
>
Mario responds:
>
This is another false statement. Any current
existence of a death penalty has everything to do with
law and nothing to do with religion in most civilized
cultures and countries. If one religion still
supports a particular practice does not invalidate all
religions and their rock solid moral codes, while
leaving each unorganized individual atheist to their
own convenient precepts, which may or not be any good.
>
Those who belong to a religion that includes the
specific precept mentioned above would face the
consequences dictated by that religion. In the
meantime what public or private consequences do all
the unorganized individual atheists face for any moral
transgressions for personal convenience as long as it
stays within the law?
>
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
