Re: No, they don't need to be intelligent, do they?
Submitted by ATN on 2002-06-9 14:30:56, Sunday
In reply to No, they don't need to be intelligent, do they? submitted by A.I. Watcher on 2002-06-9 10:01:07, Sunday
|
Hi, I'm glad to hear it's not Christianity that you have a problem with. However, we might be forgiven for not realizing this, since you have repeatedly insulted it with strong invectives, and its followers with stronger (sometimes it seems that to follow religion is, de facto, a sign of poor intelligence in your eyes. Naturally it is impossible to argue with such a priori beliefs.) The only crime I can see that Forgiven is guilty of is beliving in and defending Christianity. "Truly stupid and ignorant people" like nonhuman -- but what do you know about him except that he's a Christian? So it is Christianity per se that you have a problem with, or rather anybody who believes in it. He is stupid BECAUSE he is a Christian. Which is an old belief, and one you're certainly entitled to, but please don't say that you don't hold it. As for Forgiven, I did a search for his name, and I cannot find a single message either here or on boychat that even hints of intolerance -- which is defined, as I'm sure you know, as "The quality or condition of being intolerant," which in turn is defined as "Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs." So please show me, with a quotation, where Forgiven anywhere expressed intolerance of another point of view. "Rational, non-religious people." Looking at this from your point of view, I have to think that was a bit redundant, kind of like saying "living, breathing humans." Finally, I have one question for you. You expressed outrage that the God of the Old Testament killed "innocent women and children." Presumably you would feel the same outrage if I did this, or that Hitler did it. I just want to know by what standard you presume to sit in judgment of me if I kill a child? If the universe happened by chance and intelligence and life are a fluke, you have absolutely ZILCH authority to tell me not to kill anybody. And don't say that it's wrong because the majority says it's wrong; I doubt you'd want to go there anyway, but if you did it's simple to respond that in a meaningless universe, the will of the majority is as meaningless as anything else. They just happened like I did, and they have no right to tell me what to do and what not to do. Therefore, by what standard do you presume to judge? Your own? Fine, but I have no obligation to follow that. "If you kill somebody, you give up your right to life." Well obviously in a meaningless and lawless universe anybody's grasp on life will be tenuous, and man may even decide for the good of all to institute law and punishment; but it will have no MORAL authority, and therefore infractions should be attended by no moral outrage. So again, please explain the basis of your moral judgments, and why keeping people from killing children is not just "forcing them to live by superstitious codes." Yours very truly, ATN |
Follow ups: