Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
On 12/06/06, Mario Goveia wrote: Then take a steel cube and multiply the length by the breadth by the height to get the volume. Then using the water displacement method see if this comes out any different. Boil water the same way wherever you are again and again and see if the boiling temperature changes. --- Gabe Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely to arrive at your conclusion it would have to be the inner base x height? Mario asks: What is the inner base of a steel cube? Gabe writes: Water does not boil at the same temperature wherever you are!! Mario needs Thursday classroom! Mario replies: I used to teach the teachers of Thursday classrooms :-)) I said three things, ...the same way wherever you are again and again. This means the experiment is to be conducted wherever you are. I am well aware that changing how you boil water, open or closed, and changing the altitude of your location changes the boiling temperature. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
On 12/06/06, Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mario replies: Then take a steel cube and multiply the length by the breadth by the height to get the volume. Then using the water displacement method see if this comes out any different. RESPONSE: Surely to arrive at your conclusion it would have to be the inner base x height? Boil water the same way wherever you are again and again and see if the boiling temperature changes. Water does not boil at the same temperature wherever you are!! Mario needs Thursday classroom! http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/13jul00/boil.html -- DEV BOREM KORUM. Gabe Menezes. London, England _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- Elisabeth Carvalho wrote: I am assuming that you are using the second example to prove that the first assumption is incorrect. Hence, proving once in for all that science is not to be trusted Mario replies: Elisabeth, Actually, I did not use any assumptions. Both the principles of flight and of gravity are absolutely correct and predictable, hence proving that science, properly applied, can be absolutely trusted. Let me give you some more simple tests that should convince you that science can be trusted. Go to the top of a building and jump off. Science predicts with absolute certainty that you will fall to the ground. See for yourself whether you can trust this prediction or not :-)) Then add 2 plus 2. I predict with absolute certainty that the answer will be 4. Try this again and again and see if the answer comes out different. Then take a steel cube and multiply the length by the breadth by the height to get the volume. Then using the water displacement method see if this comes out any different. Boil water the same way wherever you are again and again and see if the boiling temperature changes. Elisabeth writes: This is the same type of rationalisation that Conservatives use to prove that evolution is a myth. Mario responds: Based on my examples above, we see that science is not rationalisation, so you have lost your connection with conservatism :-)) Rationalization is what the modern political ultra-liberal secular humanists and atheists use. You are probably incorrectly confusing conservatives with the religious nuts who believe that the Bible was written by Jesus, in modern English :-)) I am a conservative and I do not believe that evolution is a myth, but there are still missing links in the Darwinian theory, and no one has been able to prove what existed before the Big Bang. Elisabeth writes: Monkey's bottom red, man's bottom not red. Hence man could not have evolved from monkey. Mario responds: This sounds more like the kind of logic used by modern political liberals who know what's best for everyone else, better than they do:-)) For example, one man is rich, other man is poor, hence the rich man must have exploited the poor man. Another example, Goan's and Goan businesses are hiring non-Goans to get their work done, hence the Goan Kunbis and Gaudis are being exploited and Goa is importing poverty. Yet another, global warming MAY be taking place, hence the western industrial countries must be to blame, while exempting India and China. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- cornel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mario Thanks for your two examples. I would use different terminology for both examples. Rather than say it is true knowledge I would say that within a balance of probability, the first object would stay up as long as fuel is supplied. It could definitely not be a certainty. Mario responds: Your persistent attempts at relativity are becoming comical. Not to mention embarrassing. The only reason a plane would come down, other than at the desire of the pilot, would be due to a mishap, not due to any probability that the principles of flight, which represent true scientific knowledge, decided not to work. Cornel writes: In the second case, there is a very high degree of probability that one who jumps off a tall building would fall to the ground and die. As in both cases there is a balance of probability involved, I would find it difficult to consider this as true knowledge. True knowledge must mean something is absolute i.e it would always happen. People have survived falling from tall buildings! Mario observes: Another comical attempt at relativity. In this case accompanied by a failed attempt at sophistry. While there is a theoretical probability that a person who falls off a TALL building may not die as a result of their fall, what do you think the probability is that they would not fall to the ground if they jump off even a SMALL building? Cornel continues doggedly: Do you fancy trying again? Mario answers: Sure. I could go on for weeks if not longer, but I will have to bill you for all this knowledge that your schooling seems to have missed :-)) How about the true knowledge that 2 plus 2 equals 4? What is the probability that the total is anything other than 4? How about the area of a circle? Always pi multiplied by the square of the radius. This discussion really shows that you need to go back and repeat all that schooling, which now seems all for nought :-)) _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Dear Mario, I am assuming that you are using the second example to prove that the first assumption is incorrect. Hence, proving once in for all that science is not to be trusted. This is the same type of rationalisation that Conservatives use to prove that evolution is a myth. Monkey's bottom red, man's bottom not red. Hence man could not have evolved from monkey. The Bible on the other hand, gives a very accurate account of creation. Six days and counting. Elisabeth -- Let's see if I can give you an example of true knowledge that even you, who is so highly schooled that everything is relative, will be able to understand. How about the true scientific knowledge that a properly designed object if moving above a certain speed, can be made to rise up off the ground and stay up as long as it has enough fuel to maintain it's speed? Or, how about the true scientific knowledge that if one jumps off a tall building, one will fall to the ground and die? Those who would ... be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as true knowledge. should try it sometime :-)) _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Mario Thanks for your two examples. I would use different terminology for both examples. Rather than say it is true knowledge I would say that within a balance of probability, the first object would stay up as long as fuel is supplied. It could definitely not be a certainty. In the second case, there is a very high degree of probability that one who jumps off a tall building would fall to the ground and die. As in both cases there is a balance of probability involved, I would find it difficult to consider this as true knowledge. True knowledge must mean something is absolute i.e it would always happen. People have survived falling from tall buildings! Do you fancy trying again? Cornel - Original Message - From: Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994! goanet@goanet.org Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist? --- cornel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mario It would be helpful to figure out what you mean by true knowledge. That concept was largely rejected when religious knowledge was questioned with the rise of modernity. Further, one would even be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as true knowledge. Have you missed the boat along the way on this kind of discussion? Mario replies: No, but I think it is you who has missed the boat and has fallen into the water:-)) Let's see if I can give you an example of true knowledge that even you, who is so highly schooled that everything is relative, will be able to understand. How about the true scientific knowledge that a properly designed object if moving above a certain speed, can be made to rise up off the ground and stay up as long as it has enough fuel to maintain it's speed? Or, how about the true scientific knowledge that if one jumps off a tall building, one will fall to the ground and die? Those who would ... be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as true knowledge. should try it sometime :-)) _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org) _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist v/s barbarian
Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I always ask critics to be specific about what I have said that they disagree with, and provide alternative facts and opinions of their own, so that we can have an intelligent dialog. Mario, You claimed to be a barbarian. I disagreed with that. IMHO, your posts here confirm that you are more than a barbarian. Now lets have an intelligent discussion on this topic that you have introduced :-) I don't think you or anyone else should have any trouble figuring out exactly what I think, even though I have to sometimes repeat things for some of our highly schooled members for whom nothing is rock solid and everything is relative :-)) Secondly, your posts always remind me of a bad Karaoke singer doing a Bob Dylan number. The worse the presentation is, the more authentic the performance. Mervyn3.0 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- cornel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mario It would be helpful to figure out what you mean by true knowledge. That concept was largely rejected when religious knowledge was questioned with the rise of modernity. Further, one would even be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as true knowledge. Have you missed the boat along the way on this kind of discussion? Mario replies: No, but I think it is you who has missed the boat and has fallen into the water:-)) Let's see if I can give you an example of true knowledge that even you, who is so highly schooled that everything is relative, will be able to understand. How about the true scientific knowledge that a properly designed object if moving above a certain speed, can be made to rise up off the ground and stay up as long as it has enough fuel to maintain it's speed? Or, how about the true scientific knowledge that if one jumps off a tall building, one will fall to the ground and die? Those who would ... be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as true knowledge. should try it sometime :-)) _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- Valmiki Faleiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was not participating on the debate on that thread, dear Mario, was just curious about the import of an observation made by Cornel. Mario replies: Nevertheless, dear Valmiki, you took the time and effort to broadcast to the whole forum that you frequently disagreed with my rightest diatribes. This is a very general and critical comment that tells us nothing specific about what you are talking about, or if you even know what you are talking about :-) It suggests that you may be a die-hard leftist :-)) This is why I always ask critics to be specific about what I have said that they disagree with, and provide alternative facts and opinions of their own, so that we can have an intelligent dialog. It also gives me an opportunity to put what I have said in context, if necessary, or to clarify misunderstandings. The next time you see a rightest diatribe, please let me know. Or you may find something recent and relevent in my extensive section in the Goanet archives. I don't think you or anyone else should have any trouble figuring out exactly what I think, even though I have to sometimes repeat things for some of our highly schooled members for whom nothing is rock solid and everything is relative :-)) _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Books, articles and internet forums are good ways to document what individual unorganized theists and atheists believe. Mario responds: The comments above refer to what the individual unorganized atheists CLAIM to believe. If they make an exception due to convenience, there would be no personal or public consequences unless they break some law. Mario wrote: The claim above that moral teachings in religious texts are now regarded as immoral is a specious allegation, hardly well known, and is probably considered a fact only by committed atheists. Santosh writes: False. Some examples of religious moral teachings that are now regarded as immoral, and that are well- known facts are: 1. Sati 2. Casteism 3. Prohibition of widow remarriage 4. Killing of homosexuals 5. Prohibiting women from wearing mens clothing 6. Stoning of disobedient children 7. Cutting down and casting in fire those who bear bad fruit 8. Forcing disbelievers to drink boiling water, and burning them 9. Letting idolaters kill their children Mario observes: I see now that Santosh is trying to use some ancient, barbaric, clearly immoral practices, long since abolished, in his specious attempts to indict all religion. None of his references include tenets of the rock solid moral code based on the Golden Rule and The Ten Commandments. Santosh writes: The above wish (that Santosh document what is immoral about the Golden Rule and Ten Commandments are immoral) is quite strange since nobody has stated that I possess such selective documentation. Mario responds: What is really strange is how Santosh speciously indicts all religions based on a few barbaric practices long since abolished, as when he said on June 3, It has also been shown that no religion, ideology or atheistic belief system has ever had a rock-solid moral compass. To say that no religion has ever had a rock solid moral compass is clearly false. Santosh writes: But since the ten commandments have been selectively highlighted by Goveia, I wonder if he can explain the moral value of the first four commandments, and clarify why death by stoning is an appropriate moral punishment for violation of some of them as recommended in the relevant religious texts. Mario writes: The moral value of the first three or four commandments (see explanation below) sets the foundation of a religion based on a belief that there is one true God as far as Jews and Christians are concerned, who must be accepted and respected above all else. What is immoral about that? Death by stoning is not part of the any moral code that is based on the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. By the way, I must clarify the confusion that I added to with references to the Seven Suggestions and the Six Suggestions, etc. There are basically three different versions of the Ten Commandments. The Catholic version is as follows, which gives us THREE religious codes and SEVEN moral codes: 1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain 3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. 4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. There are other versions that cover the same things but are listed differently. In those versions we have FOUR religious codes and SIX moral codes. For a detailed discussion of these click on: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/deut3.htm#The%20List _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
I was not participating on the debate on that thread, dear Mario, was just curious about the import of an observation made by Cornel. VF On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 Mario Goveia wrote : Rather than such a general comment as seen above, which tells us NOTHING, wouldn't it make more intellectual sense to specify exactly what rightist diatribe one is referring to, and some rebuttal of the rightest diatribe to enlighten all of us? _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- Valmiki Faleiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Cornel, I didn't mean to evoke an apology from you. I thought you had good reason to imply Mario was not insightful, from the way you said. Mario's posts do stir thinking, though I do not agree with most of his rightist diatribes. But he does come off as a well-meaning person. (And with this unsolicited expression of regret, you, as a noble mind.) Mario observes: Rather than such a general comment as seen above, which tells us NOTHING, wouldn't it make more intellectual sense to specify exactly what rightist diatribe one is referring to, and some rebuttal of the rightest diatribe to enlighten all of us? _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Val Many thanks for your kind reply. Regards Cornel - Original Message - From: Valmiki Faleiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Goa's premiere mailing list,estb.1994! goanet@goanet.org Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist? Sorry, Cornel, I didn't mean to evoke an apology from you. I thought you had good reason to imply Mario was not insightful, from the way you said. Mario's posts do stir thinking, though I do not agree with most of his rightist diatribes. But he does come off as a well-meaning person. (And with this unsolicited expression of regret, you, as a noble mind.) -Val On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 cornel wrote : Valmiki I do not believe that I have said that Mario is not an insightful person. However, if this has been inadvertantly implied I do regret it as this was definitely not my intention. Cornel _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Mario Goveia wrote: Is there any way to document what an individual unorganized atheist REALLY believes? Yes. Books, articles and internet forums are good ways to document what individual unorganized theists and atheists believe. The claim above that moral teachings in religious texts are now regarded as immoral is a specious allegation, hardly well known, and is probably considered a fact only by committed atheists. False. Some examples of religious moral teachings that are now regarded as immoral, and that are well-known facts are: 1. Sati 2. Casteism 3. Prohibition of widow remarriage 4. Killing of homosexuals 5. Prohibiting women from wearing mens clothing 6. Stoning of disobedient children 7. Cutting down and casting in fire those who bear bad fruit 8. Forcing disbelievers to drink boiling water, and burning them 9. Letting idolaters kill their children I would like to see Santosh's documentation on what is immoral about the Christian Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. The above wish is quite strange since nobody has stated that I possess such selective documentation. As far as documentation of immoral teachings in religious texts is concerned I have already provided nine examples above. I can provide the exact sources upon request. But since the ten commandments have been selectively highlighted by Goveia, I wonder if he can explain the moral value of the first four commandments, and clarify why death by stoning is an appropriate moral punishment for violation of some of them as recommended in the relevant religious texts. Cheers, Santosh _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Mario It would be helpful to figure out what you mean by true knowledge. That concept was largely rejected when religious knowledge was questioned with the rise of modernity. Further, one would even be pressed very hard to refer to anything in science as true knowledge. Have you missed the boat along the way on this kind of discussion? Cornel - Original Message - From: Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994! goanet@goanet.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist? --- cornel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elizabeth Mario's rock solid moral compass is based on a simpleton's religious oriented commonsense. Mario observes: The comment above is an excellent example of an individual unorganized atheist who claims to be a secular humanist, whom we have already seen in practice excludes millions of oppressed and downtrodden from concern for a variety of sophisticated reasons. In my opinion, this is an elitist and patronizing attitude towards morality and common sense which may lead to all kinds of self-serving exceptions to whatever rules are adopted regarding morality as well as common sense. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Valmiki I do not believe that I have said that Mario is not an insightful person. However, if this has been inadvertantly implied I do regret it as this was definitely not my intention. Cornel - Original Message - From: Valmiki Faleiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Goa's premiere mailing list,estb.1994! goanet@goanet.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist? Cornel, I regard what you say with a some deal of respect. But pray, why do you think that Mario is not one such insightful individual (see below.) Me, a simpleton for sure. On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 cornel wrote : But there are insightful individuals who have not been near any higher education and yet developed much depth of understanding of the human condition. Cornel _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org) _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Sorry, Cornel, I didn't mean to evoke an apology from you. I thought you had good reason to imply Mario was not insightful, from the way you said. Mario's posts do stir thinking, though I do not agree with most of his rightist diatribes. But he does come off as a well-meaning person. (And with this unsolicited expression of regret, you, as a noble mind.) -Val On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 cornel wrote : Valmiki I do not believe that I have said that Mario is not an insightful person. However, if this has been inadvertantly implied I do regret it as this was definitely not my intention. Cornel _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Cornel, I regard what you say with a some deal of respect. But pray, why do you think that Mario is not one such insightful individual (see below.) Me, a simpleton for sure. On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 cornel wrote : But there are insightful individuals who have not been near any higher education and yet developed much depth of understanding of the human condition. Cornel _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- Elisabeth Carvalho wrote: Morality does not need the compass of religion to guide it. It is inherent. Frazer in the Golden Bough, wonderfully details how societies living in isolation of each other invariably reach the same conclusion. Pyramids for example are to be found from Central America (Aztec and Mayan) to the Middle East (Egypt), without there being any trade link between these civilisations. Mario observes: Elisabeth, you are once again confusing what an organized society, even an isolated one, may cooperatively believe and impose on it's members, with individual unorganized atheists, for whom morality is what they claim it to be, and the only consequence is the law. I have repeatedly said that their personal moral code may be as good as any mainstream religion's. Or it may not be. In his staunch promotion of Godlessness, Santosh has correctly pointed out that Buddhists and Jains are technically atheists, but have high moral standards. I agree with that. Elisabeth writes: Whether this inherent morality is to be defined as God's invisible hand guiding us or whether it is just the evolutionary progression of man's intelligence is a matter of debate. Mario observes: The matter of group wisdom accumulated over millenia, voluntary acceptance of a code through membership, and the corresponding social consequences are what distinguishes a group's moral code from that of an individual unorganized person, deciding for himself or herself what to believe and when to vary. Elisabeth writes: But certainly whether one is a theist or an atheist, we have long past the point where we need a codified book to provide us with checks and balances. Mario asks: How would you even know what an individual unorganized atheist needs in terms of an acceptable moral code in comparison with a recognized mainstream religion? BTW, are you still sitting atop that pointy white picket fence?:-)) Doesn't it hurt?:-)) I thought you may have jumped off when no one was looking, since we recently caught you being ashamed of being a Catholic, which suggests public acceptance of a pretty rock solid moral code - no matter how often Santosh tries to patronize and obfuscate it. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Elizabeth Mario's rock solid moral compass is based on a simpleton's religious oriented commonsense. What would be better for him is to have rock-solid reading and engagment with theoretical ideas about how and why men/women developed morality from earliest times--well before organised religion. Seminal books by Emile Durkheim, and especially on the (moral conscience/consciousness), spell out this issue rather well among so many other thinkers/authors. Higher education is basically about debunking commonsense and being touched by thought and awareness. Some however, do go through higher education without being touched by it. But there are insightful individuals who have not been near any higher education and yet developed much depth of understanding of the human condition. Cornel - Original Message - From: Elisabeth Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994! goanet@goanet.org Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist? Dear Mario, Morality does not need the compass of religion to guide it. It is inherent. Frazer in the Golden Bough, wonderfully details how societies living in isolation of each other invariably reach the same conclusion. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most people know that mere assertions can never trump documented facts. That many moral teachings in religious texts are now regarded as immoral is a well-known fact. A rock solid moral compass cannot have such gaping immoral holes in it. Mario asks: Is there any way to document what an individual unorganized atheist REALLY believes? The claim above that moral teachings in religious texts are now regarded as immoral is a specious allegation, hardly well known, and is probably considered a fact only by committed atheists. I would like to see Santosh's documentation on what is immoral about the Christian Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
RE: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Elisabeth, Sitting on the fence is something many on this list do, because you're safe from the rottweilers and pitbulls on either side however, I'm assuming that sitting on a 'white picket fence' can get pretty uncomfortable unless special steel cladding doesn't allow for getting any apparel getting into a twist :- Kevin Saldanha, ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mississauga, ON. |-|-|-|-|-|-|-| -- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:12:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Elisabeth Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist? I like sitting on white picket fences. Elisabeth mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
Most people know that mere assertions can never trump documented facts. That many moral teachings in religious texts are now regarded as immoral is a well-known fact. A rock solid moral compass cannot have such gaping immoral holes in it. Cheers, Santosh --- Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I have asserted, as an example, is that my imaginary friend and all his followers with the collected wisdom of thousands of years have developed a rock-solid moral compass - regardless of Santosh's baseless assertions to the contrary - and collectively ensure a certain level of checks and balances on our morality. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
Re: [Goanet] Theist v/s atheist?
--- Elisabeth Carvalho wrote: I love reading all the theist v/s atheists posts on this forum. I like sitting on white picket fences. Mario observes: I'm glad you are sitting on a white picket fence, which can only bruise your posterior, instead of being in the middle of the road, where you could end up as flattened road-kill :-)) As someone who has participated in this topic from time to time, I have never asserted any suggestion that anyone was generally better than anyone else. The issue is one of standards, who sets these, who monitors these and commits to abide by these. What I have asserted, as an example, is that my imaginary friend and all his followers with the collected wisdom of thousands of years have developed a rock-solid moral compass - regardless of Santosh's baseless assertions to the contrary - and collectively ensure a certain level of checks and balances on our morality. Membership in such a morally based group, which is voluntary, means one has signed on to the program, and is willing to abide by the rules, to the best of one's ability. On the other hand the unorganized individual atheist, with no moral friend real or imaginary, and no membership in any morally based group, has only a biased, self-serving moral compass, assuming he or she has a moral compass, and the results are whatever they say they are, with only civil and criminal law as a controlling consequence. Where there is overlap, the unorganized individuals will be just as good as most members of the morally based group. _ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
