Am 20.01.2014 03:56, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/19/2014 5:20 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>>
>>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>>
>> I actually find it pretty easy:
>>
>>
>> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
>> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
>> sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
>> be, it may be wrong.
>>

>> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
>> to anyone else.
>>

>> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
>> to be.
>>

>> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
>> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by

>>

>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
>> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits

>>
>>
>> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
>> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.
>>
>
> The problem, of course, is that the ones believing in supreme beings
> then tend to use that as justification for believing other vastly
> stupider things, and then imposing those things on other people. It this
> was avoidable, that would be one thing, but.. try being a woman, in a
> **huge**, and growing number, of US hospitals, who is in need to
> emergency services, to save her life, which the Catholic church doesn't
> like (i.e., anything that might threaten the life of an unborn child,
> even, stupidly, a non-viable one). If she is lucky, they ship her off to
> some place that will help, presuming there still is one, which the
> church hasn't bought out, and assuming she doesn't bleed to death, die
> of sepsis, or otherwise fail to make it to the other hospital in time.

Note that a person's current belief re a surpreme something will 
typically include that the person itself is entitled to "life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness" or some such. Thus, I consider this 




mathematical systems, but also to moral ones: No matter how complex your 
set of rules, there's always at least one remaining problem with it. 
Therefore I allow my set of moral rules to be incomplete, and its 
application to be subject to case-by-case decision.

Post a reply to this message