Leaving the community

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:41:47 GMT, "mike regish"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

Who determines what the "right things" are?

In my case, I do. Duh.


That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
than others.

Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard
in a long time.

Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Or better said, learning
better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

mike regish

Talk about amusing...

It used to be our government thought of war as a last resort.

No more...

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:40:54 -0500, Roger
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:42:14 GMT, "mike regish"
wrote:

Yep.

mike


Because they know they are the only ones in the right and must either
convert of destroy the opposition.

Roger

Correct. It's their validation.



wrote in message
. ..
So very true.

The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
I've
heard in a long time.

What's funny about it?

It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.

Think: cause vs. effect.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:Llcod.373844$wV.236352@attbi_s54...


Learning right from wrong comes from evolution.

Evolution comes from learning right from wrong.

Or better said, learning
better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

That's called "progress" and "building on foundations of knowledge".

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

wrote in message
...
So very true.

The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.

Sort of, but the proper term is "ethics" (pertaining to others), not
"morality" (pertaining to self).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:03:09 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
So very true.

The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.

Sort of, but the proper term is "ethics" (pertaining to others), not
"morality" (pertaining to self).


You may consider blowing another person up in the name of
(jesus,allah,yahweh,god,...insert your own supreme being of preference
here) unethical, I consider it immoral.

ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.

(Big Snip)

Wow.

I've seen few Usenet posts worthy of getting saved on my hard drive.

This is one of them.

Thanks for sharing that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Learning right from wrong comes from evolution.

Evolution comes from learning right from wrong.

Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to survive
in their environments or they perish. The ability to do this is coded into
their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of mutation
and natural selection, i.e., by evolution.

Humans have evolved complex behaviors that allow successful, large-scale
tribal organization. Simpler analogues of these behaviors are seen among
animals, particulary the other apes. In groups of chimps, means to settle
disputes without violence exist but are not always followed, and murder has
been observed, just as in human society.

Or better said, learning
better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

That's called "progress" and "building on foundations of knowledge".

It's just using what evolution gave us. "Progress" in terms of human
behavior is ephemeral, and quickly reverts to savagery given the proper
circumstances. It will require some more biological evolution to change
human nature; Homo Sapiens will have to give way to Homo Something Else.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

What you said was: "Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.
Biological evolution, then that's a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe.
But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with
influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious
influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the
non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious law."

I focused on this portion, which I made sure I was not taking out of
context: "But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of
those with influence."

My point was, the early Christians, who had almost no influence, drove a
great deal of societal change. And it was this societal change that later
drove an increase in influence of Christians.

"Funny" wasn't involved in my end of the discussion...





"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message
om...
Bill Denton wrote:

Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they?


I did not say the Christians were funny.

You sig, attributed to "Epicurus"...

When my son was young and learning how to ride a two-wheel bicycle

I was ABLE to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

I was WILLING to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

Many times I kept him from falling over on his bicycle

But sometimes, I let him fall over, so he could learn




" jls" wrote in message
. ..

"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:


"mike regish" wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the
right
thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
strike
you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear
of
retribution from God either.


No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.

It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
don't
be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
argument
if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete


What distinction? Moral vs religious?

There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
group.


That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
rest believe is some higher power.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus