>SB>It's so transparent that this [ID as religion] is the
>>case, that the courts are not going to be fooled or anybody else who has a
>>smattering of science education and no religious ax to grind.
>
>Well, we will have to wait and see. But I would hope the Supreme Court
>has more discrimination than Susan in this matter, and could tell the
>difference between Scientific Creationist claims based on the *Bible*
>and ID claims based on the evidence of *nature*.
no, we don't have to wait and see. The courts have already lumped ID with
creationism. I couldn't find the reference for it (dern it!) or I would
post it here.
>>SJ>Susan does not answer the question: "*on atheistic principles*, why
>>should it
>>>["the striving for morality in our actions"] be true"?
>
>SB>The answer is in front of you. You simply can't see it. I've had this
>>conversation with other religionists and they couldn't see it either. It's
>>like once you get the notion that morality flows into a human being from
>>some external source, you can't wrap your mind around the idea that
>>morality can flow *from* the human--and that there are very sound logical
>>reasons for it to do so.
>
>Susan still hasn't answered the question *on atheistic principles*. Most
>humans aren't atheists. What is there *uniquely* about atheism which
>generates moral/ethical principles like:
Chris already answered this very well--it's his area of expertise, I merely
find it interesting. The answer is that there is no such thing as
"atheistic principles." There is *human* morality and no other kind. An
individual person's morality is a conglomeration of their history, their
macroculture (European, Middle Eastern, etc.), microculture (family,
community, etc.) and their own experience and intelligence. Religion
sometimes factors in and sometimes doesn't.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOSEPH STALIN, by Richard Lourie, pp.
>34-37 (Counterpoint, 1999)
>
>I was eleven when my father was murdered in a barroom brawl. I wasn't
>surprised. My father was a very murderable man. Even his own son had
>thrown a knife at him.
Pretty much everyone in our culture believes that what Stalin did was
abhorrent. I think pretty much all the Russians (who are still mostly
atheists) think that too. In other words, Stalin violated basic human moral
principles. So did Torquemada, who believed he was doing God's work.
Sadists can *always* find a justification for their lusts.
>>SJ>Susan again tries to sidestep the question. We all agree that Bakker was
>>>a hypocrite, judged against the standard of the Bible's teachings.
>
>SB>I didn't sidestep, you just couldn't recognize the answer. I don't *care*
>>about him being a hypocrite. I didn't think his morality came from his
>>religion in the first place. I don't think your or the Pope's morality
>>comes from your religion either.
>Where the does Susan think specifically Christian morality comes from
>then?
see above. Christians are humans and have basic human morality. They merely
put a Christian "spin" on pre-existing morality and tell each other it's
from God.
>>SJ>But as I said: "if a fellow atheist did the same things, on what grounds
>>>would Susan cricise him/her?"
>
>SB>for violating his own, and society's moral standards.
>
>If the atheists "own...moral standards" was `adultery is OK' but the
>Christian's was "Thou shall not commit adultery", which would Susan
>regard as normative?
normative? Let's put it this way: Yesterday I overheard a woman reading a
Bible story (one of those scaled-down children's versions you get in
waiting rooms) to her children in which God destroyed all first-born
children in a villiage in order to force the pharoh to let the Israelites
go, etc. First, I found it highly questionable to read a story to children
in which many innocent children were slaughtered, and second I realized
that the morality of such an entity conflicted sharply with my own
morality. If that god was so powerful, why didn't he just kill the damn
pharoh and leave the kids out of it?
>>SJ>Susan does more than just "arguing"!
>
>SB>I also like to belly dance. But what on earth are you talking about?
>
>If Susan really doesn't realise what I am talking about, then I am not
>going to tell her.
Then it shall remain a mystery. I'm comfortable with that.
>>SJ>Why on Earth would I be bothered trying to force Susan to pray with
>>>me. I have enough trouble forcing myself to pray with me! :-)
>
>SB>ROFL!!!
>
>I note that Susan doesn't answer this question either.
oops! I thought I had detected humor.
>Nevertheless, his statement above and Darwin's statement below has lent
>support to racist policies by governments well into the 20th century:
see above. Sadists can get justification almost anywhere.
Southern preachers found all kinds of support for slavery in the Bible.
2800 years ago when the Bible was written (and 130 years ago when slavery
still flourished in the US) slavery was perfectly moral. In fact, 2800
years ago it was perfectly moral to sell your children into slavery if you
happened to need the cash. Our culture's morality has shifted so much that
slavery is now completely unacceptable. Adultery, which could get you
stoned to death 2800 years ago is now not even illegal. Child slavery which
was fine 2800 years ago can get you hard time in our culture today.
Morality doesn't come from either God or the Bible and it never has.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 12:21:19 EDT