I don't know smitty. You read an aweful lot into my post. Where do you get off making such wild insinuations about Hitler and Mother Teresa based on my lack of religion? Anyone with an IQ of 10 can look at these two individuals and decide for themselves that one is bad and one is good. I don't need God to tell me so. Did you read the bible and then figure out the difference between these two? If so, you need lots of help. Your arrogance is astonishing. You are once again saying that people that don't read the bible and agree with you are bad. You are saying that unless we are like you, we can't make distinctions between good and bad. I don't need the bible to tell me having sex with children is wrong. I don't need the bible to tell me that killing someone is wrong. I don't need the bible to tell me that you are an arrogant ***. Some of these things just are what they are.
Are you telling me that without the bible, you wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong? Maybe my wife is right. Religion is for feeble minded people. Sheep? I don't necessarily agree with that, but you are making the case for her.
Upsman,
Actually I don't make the association that you may be thinking. I believe I have only given general beliefs of some of the differing world view, some of which I disagree with, I've been down all these lines in my personal life. Think of this as you have a better answer to life than what I have. By asking questions we may find it.
Before I bought my Cannondale I had a 400ex, (hard to be arrogant on one of them,LOL) I asked alot of questions did some research and purchased it. This is the same questions, I may be on the Honda now and you have the Cannnondale. If your right, I'll buy it. With the quad world or religous world, before I switch I have to have the FACTS.
You said you believed in the Probability of Alien life, you don't believe in God. Therefore Darwin is right, we are an accident and a Naturalist view point is what is left. Is there an option that I didn't mention? Have I misunderstood you?
A Naturalist point of view is the above. That there is no moral right or wrong. That Both of those concepts are correct. It's not me, it the natural conclusion of Naturalisem.
In effect There can be no Moral Standard for what is right or wrong. Without a ruler in which to make judgements, how can anything be either. My standard is the Bible, you said yours was in effect that you didn't care as long as you were left alone. Below is a link on Naturalism, I have cut and pasted the information, so people can see I don't make this stuff up as I go.
Naturalism websiteGuiding Philosophy
Based on knowledge derived from the physical and social sciences, the world view that is naturalism holds that human beings are fully included in nature. Science tells us that we are connected and united, in each and every aspect of our being, to the natural world. There is, under naturalism, nothing supernatural about us which places us above or beyond nature, but this is something to be celebrated, not feared. Practically speaking, naturalism holds that an individual????????s development and behavior are entirely the result of prior and surrounding conditions, both genetic and environmental. Naturalism, therefore, denies that persons have contra-causal free will - that something within them is capable of acting as a first cause. But this isn't a problem, it's just how things are. See A Guide to Naturalism, Tenets of Naturalism, Consequences of Naturalism, and Resources.
The above statment is that we are animals, no better no worse. We act because of chemicials and enviroment. I also mentionedd this before.
Responsibility and morality: From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections. Therefore individuals don????????t bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn????????t have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we still hold individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesn????????t undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. However, naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. Therefore Mother Theresa and Hitler both only reacted to the enviroment in which they were living in. They question "the basis for retributive attitudes" I also didn't read the Bible to know that those things are wrong. I don't make these things up. I'm not trying to be arrogant or know it all or any such thing. People say that religion is for "Sheep" with out looking at the end result of their thought process. Some people are fine with just putting there heads down and eating grass. I question my beliefs, I look for support for it, I'm looking for answers.
You may be thinking that I'm an arrogant *** again, like you said above. Man I'm just asking questions and they run to what could be a dead end. Hopefully, we are both thinking about it. I ask questions to get clarity, I make statements to find bounderies. Thats it the chips fall where they fall.
Good talking with you.
Smitty