[MD] The Moral Landscape

Tue Oct 19 15:35:23 PDT 2010

As for not believing in any religion, you're wrong. I believe in the
religion
of individual liberty to think and act as one wishes (without direct harm to
others) and to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's choices
in
life  -- the religion of "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Hitler was not showing direct harm to his own environment on the
"Adelaarsnest"mountain,
Hitler took all responsability and consequenses personally, together with 6
million evaporated jews and 20 million
european's, The number of Americans that died on Omaha, Utah, etc beach
remains unknown until today.
There are no exact figure's about Poland, Russia, Oekraine, etc.
The pursuit of life liberty, and happiness was called the surch for
'Lebensraum", space to live.

2010/10/20 <plattholden at gmail.com>

> Hi Steve,
>
> >> Steve:
> >> I haven't been following moq,org for a while. Did I miss the part
> >> where you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? It is my
> >> understanding that you don't accept the truth of any of the world's
> >> religions, yet you seem to be arguing here that religion is
> >> nevertheless necessary. Necessary for _other_ people. You seem to
> >> think that you are defending religious people, but on the contrary,
> >> your view is entirely condescending towards them. You see them as
> >> dangerous children who need religion to keep them under control so
> >> they don't turn into Pol Pots. Though you don't believe in virgin
> >> births, living gods, and the like, you think that it is good for other
> >> people to believe such falsehoods. Maybe you are right (I don't think
> >> so) but let's at least be clear about which one of us is treating
> >> religious people as responsible selves who have worth as individuals
> >> and would prefer not to be deceived about the world and which one of
> >> us treats human beings as sheep who need comforting falsehoods. Unless
> >> I missed something and you have recently found Jesus, then your
> >> so-called respect for faith is no more than condescension.
>
> >> Platt
> > You appear to transferring a lot of your own feelings towards "religious
> > people" to me. I don't think a lot of the moral teachings of various
> > religions are "falsehoods," nor do I think persons of faith are
> necessarily
> > "deceived."
>
> Steve:
> This is a typical Platteral shift. The question was not about whether
> religions have any true moral beliefs. Of course they do, and since
> religions contradict one another's moral teachings they also obviously
> have a lot of false moral beliefs.
>
> Platt
> Likewise the fact that many scientific teachings have been proven false
> indicates that whatever pronouncements science might make about morality
> may
> also be false. The faith you place in reason is like a Christian's faith in
> the
> resurrection.
>
> Steve
> If there are any people of faith
> who are not deceived (if one religion actually is true), then there
> are certainly millions who are deceived.
>
> Platt
> Likewise, science has deceived millions again and again. It's latest
> deception -
> -global warming.
>
> Steve
> The question is what is the basis for moral truth? Is it (1) the
> authority of prophets and clerics? Or is it (2) the fact that some
> things are better than others and therefore the distinction between
> good and bad is open to rational inquiry?
>
> Platt
> Rather the questions are 1) Are you going to ignore the lessons of history
> about social relations, or 2) Do you believe neuroscientists like Harris
> can
> lead us to Utopia?
>
> Platt:
> >Rather I think anyone who thinks they know better than
> > other people about spiritual matters is not only deceiving himself, but
> > poses a danger to others. Certainly history shows that to be the case.
>
> Steve:
> You have just summarized many of my greatest concerns about pretty
> much every religion. I suppose you subscribe to that one religion that
> does not claim to have knowledge of spiritual matters that others
> don't have? If like me, you recognize that history has shown that
> people thinking that they know better than others about spiritual
> matters has been disastrous and criticize this practice, you should
> understand that this is decidedly _not_ a defense of religion. It is a
> criticism of pretty much every organized religion.
>
> Platt
> Yes, and the same applies to science and scientists who may think,
> rationally,
> that they have superiority about spiritual matters.
>
> Platt:
> > What I know is that I know little. So I don't condemn an entire group
> > who, by their acts of charity, may have something of value to teach me.
>
> Steve:
> Another Platteral shift. No one is condemning any groups en mass or
> any acts of charity. Your defense of religion here is pure
> condescension given that you don't believe in any religion.
>
> Platt
> If you say so. Likewise, I could charge you with condescension towards
> those
> who don't put their faith in science and reason as you do. But, what is to
> be
> gained by launching such personal attacks?
>
> As for not believing in any religion, you're wrong. I believe in the
> religion
> of individual liberty to think and act as one wishes (without direct harm
> to
> others) and to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's choices
> in
> life  -- the religion of "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser