- #36
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 988
- 4
I don't mean to sound rude or anything like that, but I can't really reply to you rlast post, because as valid as much of it may have been, i fear it all misses the point. This thread has become a discussion about ethics and about right and wrong actions in particular instances and as such should be argued on that level. Your most recent reply though is entirely based on a metaphysical/epistemological level. It is true that these facts are important, but a discussion about ethics is not the place to address them. They are a discussion in their own right. I have my reasons for believing as I do, and if we really wanted to, we could sit down together and discuss it until we reach some resolution between our two views: But I doubt that either of us have the time (they are not easy questions to answer)
One more point though before i finish this post: One of the major intentions behind me exposing my view on ethics is simply to show that the ethic that our society has is (may be) based on entirely physical reality without need of objective right and wrong, without a god, without supernatural reference, and without reference to vague Absolutes. I am claiming to be able to justify our ethical system (or at least start the thought process down that path).
I have learned one thing from this thread so far which is mor important than anything though: It is not necessary to start out on the strongest antagonism: This only causes people to react strongly, and grip their indoctrination more than ever before, fearing the loss of that which they know. In the future, I will start out with semi-neutral topics. Topics which don't invoke a strong natural reaction to deny the possibility.
Maybe another time, in another place, my points will be a little more amiably expressed, and will seem a little less threatening.
One more point though before i finish this post: One of the major intentions behind me exposing my view on ethics is simply to show that the ethic that our society has is (may be) based on entirely physical reality without need of objective right and wrong, without a god, without supernatural reference, and without reference to vague Absolutes. I am claiming to be able to justify our ethical system (or at least start the thought process down that path).
I have learned one thing from this thread so far which is mor important than anything though: It is not necessary to start out on the strongest antagonism: This only causes people to react strongly, and grip their indoctrination more than ever before, fearing the loss of that which they know. In the future, I will start out with semi-neutral topics. Topics which don't invoke a strong natural reaction to deny the possibility.
Maybe another time, in another place, my points will be a little more amiably expressed, and will seem a little less threatening.