Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
It only takes the actions of a few Schindlers to save many people..
What other objective yardstick is there? Long-lived groups (the Catholic Church for example) must be doing something right, while short-lived groups (Nazi Germany for example) must be doing something wrong.
Two points.
1. You were the one that pointed out individual survival does not survival make.
Survival takes many forms, not just keeping its members alive. The group still exists.
2. You defined morality as local to a group ---
Such a concept is not required to be enforced by God (God seldom intervenes anyway) and exists solely within the social construct of the group.
And Paine was not 'ostracized'. He had enemies, like any opinionated man.
Ant colonies are successful.
Squabbling parties within the European Union could learn a lot about how to get along from the invasive Argentine ant population. Researchers have discovered an enormous "supercolony" of these ants that extends across 6,000 kilometers (3,728 miles) of Southern Europe.
God give you a free choice to choose Him or reject Him. Would you blame Him for YOUR choice? Apparently. Should your Creator simply ignore your rebellion with no punishment? Is that how a loving father behaves toward rebellious children (only in the United States!).
The jews rejected Him and turned to false Gods on several occasions, and rejected the Messiah on another - and were punished. As far as Hindus, Muslims - these people worship false gods - The God of the jews is the only true God. Allah is fictional and so are the 300 million or so Hindu gods. There is only one God and the law of non-contradiction does not allow numerous Gods as they all contradict each other. Logic allows for no gods or one god, but not more than one.
Some ask "why?", I ask, "why not?"
That doesn't quite square with what you said earlier: Who comes up with what's moral? Whoever has the most power? In a democracy the people...in a dictatorship, the dictator. Scary, but unfortunately true.
This is summarized as "might makes right," and is in direct conflict with the primary tenet of libertarianism, that it is absolutely wrong to impose force on another. Your subtle qualification ("in the current system") implies that there are other valid moral approaches, which is contrary to the libertarian position.
Beyond that, you've given us a utilitarian argument as to what is moral, and you're assuming without justification that "what's best for all," has some measure of moral superiority. History provides numerous examples to the contrary -- of successful yet despotic regimes that relied on conquest and enslavement for their success, and for which "what's best for the ruling elite" was the primary goal.
The bible, which claims to be the Word of God, lays out quite clearly how he did it. I know because God told me in His Word. Adam was made from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib. God can do that - He's God and you're not.
So, I hurl the question right back at you - what makes you qualified to question God's Word?
Athena is wondering the same thing about you.
Very good. This is a good question. Chemical processes are not right or wrong, they just are.
OK, then: the despotic Egyptian empire lasted thousands of years, as did the various incarnations of Chinese tyranny.
We can pay special attention to the Roman Empire, which failed not because of its aggressive conquest, or its widespread enslavement of people, but for preciselt the opposite reason: the Roman leadership and citizenry lost their aggressive edge.
As to the longevity of the Catholic Church, I'm inclined to give a little bit of credit to God....
Your use of the term "objective yardstick" brings us once more to the moral implication of "atheist evolution," which yields nothing more than utilitarianism.
By the way, I want you to answer the previous excellent post in which it was correctly point out:
What basis does evolution provide jlogajan to condemn any belief whatever, since all beliefs are nothing but the result of chemical and physical forces in the first place? What could possibly be "wrong" with a neurochemical, physical phenmomenon in an impersonal universe that is nothing but physical forces at work?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.