Am 20.01.2014 21:17, schrieb andrel:
> On 20-1-2014 1:20, 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.
>
> nitpicking: a true agnost is sure (s)he is not able to know. That is
> what distinguishes her/him from an ordinary person that simply does not
> know.

I'd consider myself a meta-agnostic: I /think/ I'm unable to know, but I 
don't know that either.

Regardless, even if I was sure about the inability to know, the rules 
derived from it would be the same.



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


> I am afraid that I don't see how this helps in deciding what to do in

> follow that.

I think there's plenty of stuff that can be derived from this particular 
rule:

- Base the rules you follow on your personal and current belief, not on 
what you just happen to feel like doing. (In other words, avoid hypocrisy).

- Allow others to follow different rules, regardless what belief they 

others' rules are not hypocritical.)

- Avoid conflicts between your rules and that of others.


Another thing I find fundamentally important is the words "freely and 
without shame or fear", and applying them to everyone, including myself.



>> currently think the supreme something's nature is:
>>
>> * I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme
>> something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its
>> nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout
>> the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove
>> it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such
>> an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is
>> nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.
>>

>> humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.
>>

>>
>>
>> Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the
>> "commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.
>
> Going for the roundabout way of trying to second guess what a god would
> want if it did exist does not appeal to me.


current belief is that there is no God, then by all means use that as a 
basis.

Post a reply to this message