Hrm. Because I lack the will to go back through seven pages of pedantic nonsense, "googled" information and misquotes, I'm just going to give my own. If you don't like it, then it's because you're unreasonable, irrational, an idiot, or all three.
First: God is a precept. I'm not going to align myself with the atheists or the theists in this one, because more often than not, they are both equally as repugnant, stubborn, and wrong. Theists have taken to abusing the linguistics of scripture rather than going by the dictums of the Vatican, and believe what they are told. That is a feeble way to live. Atheists are just as much a waste, because they define themselves by something they oppose, and are as much a slave to the concept of religion as any. There is no "God" in the normative sense - there is a collective, accepted set of moral codes that are widely agreed upon that have, through time and idiocy, been manifested into an actual being. If you look at every major religion, and even many of the not-so-majors, you find a common trend among their main views - they all advocate brotherhood, righteousness, loyalty, etc. IE, a common moral code. They have different details and nuances, so don't pester me about that.
The idea that there is actually a giant man sitting in a throne of gold in the sky, or on an alternate plane of existence that is infinitely prettier than ours, filled with singing angels and bunny rabbits - okay, really, think about that. No.
I'm not attacking any religion or religion at all, just pointing out a flaw with the premise of it. Churches and temples don't really bother me, and they're rather aesthetically pleasing.
Second: Free will, even in morals. Just because there is a commonly accepted moral code doesn't mean you have to follow them. Kind of an "Eligo, ergo sum" paradigm in here, but not as fatalistic.
Third: There is no good and no evil. If there were, God would have to exist, and absolute morals would have to exist. Without proof of these two requisites, there can be no concept of good and evil except those that are individual.
And while Descartes may have been a "wanker", I agree with his Meditations on logic, that the mind has two powers, intuitive, or apprehending direct truths, and deductive, or making logical progression from a priori truths we know by intuition. He did, however, try to reform Anselm's ontological argument, which was not only flawed to begin with, but a waste of time for him to try to ressurect in the Fifth Meditation.
_________________ <center><i>Don't touch the pretty, fucker.</i></center>
|