On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Arnold at least was honest in a way you and Doug are not. He recognzied
> that "moral principles" (which he also, for no good reason, thought
> essential) were attached to the religious idea...There are no
> substitutes. If you drop religion, then you have to get along without it
> and the ideas it (and it alone) supports.
I see. So you believe that all morality is religious -- and that if you are not religious, you have no morality.
So people like you and me, who don't believe in god, have no morals.
This is so wrong it's laughable, Carrol. It's also superannuated. Nobody intelligent has been wrong like this since the mid-19th century. The only people nowadays who agree with you are your worst enemies, the religious fundamentalists. But you are surely unique in thinking that having no morality is not only possible but a good thing.
At least this answers the recurrent mystery we Carrol watchers have long had about how you can be such a Jeremiah, swagging your hungry clouds on the deep, while insisting you are not making moral denunciations -- nay, going so mind-bendingly far as to morally denounce moral denunciations: you think that because you don't believe in god, none of your condemnations are moral.
I am very sorry I took you seriously on this subject. I wasted time writing things which presupposed a much higher level of debate. I blame Shag, who nagged me into it. Never again.
Michael