Fester wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40E9A4ED.87CFEE27@worldnet.att.net...

Fester wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40E986A1.BC2C5C7D@worldnet.att.net...

Fester wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40E8C4BF.E8D7989F@worldnet.att.net...

Fester wrote:

<snip>

Content atheist/nihilist is a contradiction.

Only in your prejudiced mind is atheist a synonym for

nihilist.

There

is no

contradiction in my statement. Deal with it.

Do you believe in these principles?

There is/are no:

1. teleology

Define please.

2. wrong or right - just cause and effect

I believe that principles of moral behavior arise from a

rational

mind.

<Snip lovely unrealistic sentiments>

That's right. Don't bother to confront what you don't want to

accept

Only the insane confront nonsense as if it were sense.

, just
run away.

yawn

Now it's my turn to ask you a couple of questions:

Imagine that your religious beliefs were proven beyond doubt to

all

wrong.

That there were no gawds or pitchforks or holy hand grenades,

And you claim not to be antagonistic toward God and religion?...

I don't just claim it, I state is a fact.

"no gawds or pitchforks or holy hand grenades, etc."... learn to
comprehend what you write.

I comprehend it fully. Having a sense of humor about a subject does not
imply antagonism.

What you show is a lack of courage to face who you are. Be a

mentsh...

drop the denials and take a stand for what you truly are:

atheist/nihilist...

There's less shame in admitting it than in denying it.

I've proudly stated that I am an atheist. I am not a nihilist,

I

respect law, political systems and a humanistic basis for morality.

You passed the test for atheist/nihilist with flying colors.

You are a liar.

hmm

I have demonstrated that they are different concepts and
that I am one and not the other.

You claimed them to be different concepts but haven't demonstrated it.

How would you behave? Would you conduct yourself by lying and

stealing

and

killing? If not why not?

I don't know what conditions would be like in those circmstances

do

know

there would be no natural moral restraints on any of those

azctivities.

First, what do you mean by "natural moral restraints."

Nature is amoral... Without God there are no Absolute Morals, only

artificial

ones constructed at the convenient expedience of man's selfish desire.

Uh huh. Here's a clue for you. Very little of the world is the way man
first found it.

The world is precisely as it was when we apppeared.

We construct tools and we build, and we alter nature in an
incalculable number of ways.

Aside from the toys we construct out of the material we find, how have
we altered nature one whit.

The first mud huts we built were "artificial"
constructs, but useful ones to us. So are logic and science an

constructs.

Toys.

That we constructed morality (whether a a morality based upon
rational thought or based upon the ancient literature of long-dead
civilizations) to live by, we have created "artifical" moralities.

Correct, we are capable of constructing artificial relativistic morality.
However, its Absolute Morality we can't invent or destroy.

Secondly, answer the
question. I answered yours.

I answered honestly. I don't know what I'd do in the hypothetical

you imagined.

No, you have consistently avoided the question. You have refused to

Why?

I said I don't have an answer to the question... what's your problem?

Could it be that you are afraid to admit that people could live and
thrive and be happy without superstition?

I'd like to see people live, thrive, and be happy as much as you do.
You believe people can achieve a state of fulfillment believing the
superstitions you do.

Others believe they come closest by believing
their own superstitions which happen to run contrary to yours.
Implying their superstitions are less happy making than yours is
pretty arrogant and intolerant coming from a moral relativist such
as yourself... wouldn't you say?

Since that world's morals would necessarily be relativistic,
I believe circumstances rather than moral considerations would govern
human behavior. That's the way its been since the beginning, until

institution of the guide of Absolute Morality in the Five Books of

(Genesis - Deuteronomy).

And what is wrong with rational behavior in the presence of

as a guide to behavior?

When it comes to making moral choices the ability to reason is used for

wrong reasons. Moral issues have a way of turning reason to the support

emotional impulses coming from desire. Both sscientific knowledge and its
reverse practical observation go out the window when moral expedience

over.

There's many a rationale for irrational behavior but that's part of the
price
we pay for being cognizant beings. That price was lifted with the

of
the Absolute Morality found only in the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy).

<snip>

"An approach to philosophy that holds that human life is

and

that all religions, laws, moral codes, and political systems are

thoroughly

empty and false. "

I find both that human life has meaning and that political

such

as

democracy, hold the promise of allowing people to give meaning

their

lives.

What meaning is that?

I find it meaningful to be happy, to learn, to reproduce and in

to

live a pleasant life.

In other words, the meaning of life is to make it subject to your

Subject to the consideration that I don't impede others in their efforts

live the life that they desire.

What do you do when another's desire conflicts with yours?

That said, according to the definition you provided I would

with you in terms of religion, but

my stated basis of morality is not novel.

You're right about that.

Then your definition of nihilism does not apply to me. You have

youorself wrong.

I no longer overestimate your intelligence.

Of course not. You are no judge, remember?

We are all moral judges... cognizance commands it.

<snip>

Sorry, I should have known better than to overestim