--- Bosco D'Mello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mario with an excellent command of the English > language, ofcourse is arguing for the sake of > arguing. As we all know, he must have the last word > on everything. > > Mario/Gilbert - What are these "rock solid > Christian moral codes" that you two are trying to > defend ? Could you both kindly list them. > Mario responds: > Bosco, Apparently my command of English failed in this case because you are asking a question that has already been answered several times in this thread:-)) > I will let Gilbert speak for himself. I'm not sure why you have combined us because we have approached this issue differently. > What we do have in common is to recognize the snide and gratuitous attack on morally based groups by a small cabal of determined atheists on Goanet. Since you seem unfamiliar with this thread you must not know of the references to members of moral organizations as having a "mob psychology" or a "herd mentality" and the moral organisations as having "fake morality". Perhaps you are numb because you have seen Santosh's attacks on religion in the past, perhaps he has intimidated you into accepting him as a spokesman for all atheists, or perhaps you identify and agree with him. That's your business. I can only go by what he is writing on a daily basis. > It is also instructive that a big Goanet honcho like yourself now comes to the defense of the attackers of religion and the religious while questioning and making snide references about those who oppose his attacks. > I am quite willing to agree to disagree and have done so with several others, even atheists like Vivek and Aristo. When they write something I disagree with, I provide a civil, perhaps robust, counter opinion or fact and I try to be very specific. They do the same. However, those who use this forum to blindly attack either my country or my religion, especially using gross distortions or misrepresentations of recognizable facts, are treated with all the respect they rightfully deserve:-)) > The basic points I have made in this thread are titled POINT below. Please give me your comments on these. Your answers will be graded:-)) > The parts titled COMMENT are personal opinions and observations to expose and oppose the religious attacks and attackers for what they are. You may respond to these, too, if you choose to. > a) POINT: The discussion is NOT about the rock solid Christian moral code. It is about the moral equivalence of the moral codes of all major morally based groups, including groups that may be atheist according to Santosh, their universal spokesman, like the Jains and Buddhists, versus the moral codes of unorganized individual atheists like those on Goanet. I say it is conditional simply because we have no idea what unorganized individual atheists are up to. The attackers insist that there IS a universal moral equivalence, without explaining how they would know. > b) POINT: Members of morally based groups, by definition, sign on to the group's moral code, many of which have been established over centuries of experience. For example, Christians have the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. Sai Baba has a good one too. Everyone knows what these are. Even if some members violate these, the rules themselves remain "moral" or "rock solid". In addition, there is group pressure for each individual to conform, and consequences if they don't which depend on the severity of the violation. Thus there are some checks and balances on each member. Do you disagree with any of this? If so, please explain why. > COMMENT: Your friend, Santosh, in his zealous full-scale attack on all morally based groups, says that such rock solid moral codes are hypocrisy or "fake morality" because they have been violated by some members. Apparently Sai Baba has been accused of pedophilia, some Jains believe in nudism, one deranged Hindu woman jumped on to her husbands funeral pyre, and some Mormons and other Christians have been arrested. Santosh blames their moral codes for their transgressions rather than the individuals who may have been violaters from time to time as we all are. > b) POINT: Unorganized individual atheists may have excellent, even superior, moral codes than members of morally based groups, or they may not, but these are private to them - i.e. home made. No one really knows what these are, no one would know if and when the individual would make exceptions based on need or convenience, unless the person got arrested. There are no outside checks and balances other than the law and no one has a basis for accusing them of hypocrisy. > COMMENT: Amazingly, Santosh takes umbrage with this simple sequential logic. As a self-appointed spokesperson for all individual atheists, he deliberately ignores my repeatedly saying that any or all atheists could have excellent moral codes, we just don't have a way of knowing. Then he insists that all atheists have excellent moral codes simply because he says so, and demands that we accept this. > Santosh claims that atheists are capable of developing strong moral codes through study, research and deep introspection. I say, OK, maybe, maybe not. My problem is how the heck would Santosh know what any other atheist has done in the privacy of his home or his thoughts? Besides, I could care less whether they are studious researchers and thinkers, or whether they have simply copied someone else's moral code. I simply reject the gross generalized insinuation that all atheists are superior human beings and that the rest of us are part of a "mob" or "herd" with "fake moralities". > I know you have a hard time being specific, but I would like you to try and tell me exactly what you find objectionable in the paragraphs titled POINT. If you have anything to say on the parts titled COMMENT, that would be fine as well. >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
