>
> We're talking at cross purposes. (At least you are.) I'm talking stratagy,
> you're talking morality (or ethics maybe?). I've made no claims about moral
> codes one way or another. But I will say this: Thinking you're "right" and
> deserve to win a game, doesn't do you any good if you don't first
> understand how to *play* and *win* that game.
True. But what point is there to winning if you go about it in a way
that makes you unable to respect yourself?
>
> Righteousness is never a substitute for knowledge or finesse.
True. But to be truly righteous one must act with good knowledge and
finesse. You artificially split the concept of righteousness here!
>
> >I claim that morality is objective. Whatever your
> >opponents feelings, drives or beliefs are irrelevant if they are acting
> >in a way which is not objectively moral.
>
> Is that a quote from Pat Robertson, perhaps?
>
> -Prof. Tim
>
One of the reasons I think that folks follow religion like they do is
that it gives them what they believe is a firm moral code. It is
unfortunate that the foundation is one of faith and not firm solid
facts. Very hard to build something solid on mere whims . As weak as
their position is they stick too it because it satisfies a simple human
need to know if one is doing the right thing. However if you think of
people as creatures that live by thinking then the moral code that
follows is really a simple one: does an action (or a value) help or
hinder the act of thinking? Pat Robertson holds faith as a virtue.
Because thinking ends where faith begins I hold faith as one of the the
worst of the vices. Do I sound like Pat Robertson now?
> (BTW, Sodom, I disagree with you--self-righteous atheists seem just as ugly
> as their religous counterparts!)
Ah Ha! A moral judgment! Very good! Soon you shall become as ugly as
moi! Heh heh!
The ugly self-righteous atheist Nate
surf.to/nateman