|
Post by william on Apr 21, 2005 14:44:33 GMT -5
I I'm of the opinion that life is how you take it. There is no good or bad. There is no right or wrong. There’s only culturally derived social mores and laws. Sadly, religion plays a humongous role in it all. And here we are. and we wonder how people get the idea that atheists are imoral?
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Apr 21, 2005 14:52:45 GMT -5
William,
I think that the word that you intended to use here is "amoral" not immoral. They aren't the same. Amoral loosely means, without morality or moral code. Immoral means contrary to a particular moral code. That statement by GodsAreUs can't really be categorized as being immoral. Also, the concept that he is outlining isn't necessarily amoral either, because he acknowledges the existence of social mores and laws.
So while you may disagree with the source of morality that GodsAreUs proposes, your statement that atheists (he) are immoral is unfounded.
|
|
GodsAreUs
Seasoned Citizen
If you fail to question anything, you may be had by everything.
Posts: 215
|
Post by GodsAreUs on Apr 21, 2005 15:02:39 GMT -5
William, I think that the word that you intended to use here is "amoral" not immoral. They aren't the same. Amoral loosely means, without morality or moral code. Immoral means contrary to a particular moral code. That statement by GodsAreUs can't really be categorized as being immoral. Also, the concept that he is outlining isn't necessarily amoral either, because he acknowledges the existence of social mores and laws. So while you may disagree with the source of morality that GodsAreUs proposes, your statement that atheists (he) are immoral is unfounded. I could not agree more. I live by the "rules" and feel most of them are good to have around. Of course, complete anarchy would certianly speed up natural selection.
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 23, 2005 22:38:35 GMT -5
William, I think that the word that you intended to use here is "amoral" not immoral. They aren't the same. Amoral loosely means, without morality or moral code. Immoral means contrary to a particular moral code. That statement by GodsAreUs can't really be categorized as being immoral. Also, the concept that he is outlining isn't necessarily amoral either, because he acknowledges the existence of social mores and laws. So while you may disagree with the source of morality that GodsAreUs proposes, your statement that atheists (he) are immoral is unfounded. I stand corrected! I actualy was not realy tring to say atheists are without morals, It was sort of jest, I should have atacched a so I wouldnt have been taken seriously. thanks for the samantic help, I thought it was just my inability to remember how to spell. Im not sure if I have enoug functioning brain to nremember the difference latter though.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on May 4, 2005 19:53:58 GMT -5
The only way I can see heaven existing without clashing with other peoples' heavens: When you die and go up to the pearly gates, they lead you into a big room and plug your cerebral cortex into god's very own The Matrix. Then you can have anything you want, but none of it's real...everyone has their own version.
It'd solve a lot of problems. Loved ones in hell? No problem, a digital version of them is there to chat with. Remarried after spouse's death? Hey, you can have them both, and neither of them will be affected--in their heavens, they have you to themselves!
After all...total (but pleasant) oblivion seems to be a goal aspired to by many down here. Seems only logical then.
|
|
twobirds
Seasoned Citizen
Religion is a con.
Posts: 111
|
Post by twobirds on May 4, 2005 21:14:48 GMT -5
Griffey, that is one possibility that I never really thought of, interesting though, think of the possible "heavens" you could get.
|
|