This happens to be the same God that murders 40 children for making fun of a bald prophet? Who orders raped women to be killed if they do not yell out loud enough? Who cannot simply "forgive" but has to crucify someone and then "forgive?????"
Where did that God get morallity from? What would be his basis?
Gee, are rights and freedoms moral? Where in the bible are those mentioned????? When did Christ ever say "all people are born equal?" If I remember, the bible says in effect that all people are born deserving of death.
You are saying that history and our ability to communicate the cause and effects through modern sciences does not provide some basis in which to make morality objective?
Take the definition: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Is it subjective to say that right and good conduct can be defined in one way as "not causing unnecessary harm to a fellow human?" In other words, can that fit a definition of morality?
If so, then apply what we know given evidence provided by history as to which actions are in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Before there was historical evidence and sciences to interpret that evidence, morality may have been sujective, but that is no longer the case.
As another poster put it - 4000 years ago, God killing a lot of children for making fun of someone was moral, but today we know better.
Slashdot Mirror
This happens to be the same God that murders 40 children for making fun of a bald prophet? Who orders raped women to be killed if they do not yell out loud enough? Who cannot simply "forgive" but has to crucify someone and then "forgive?????"
Where did that God get morallity from? What would be his basis?
Gee, are rights and freedoms moral? Where in the bible are those mentioned????? When did Christ ever say "all people are born equal?" If I remember, the bible says in effect that all people are born deserving of death.
Some morallity....
You are saying that history and our ability to communicate the cause and effects through modern sciences does not provide some basis in which to make morality objective?
Take the definition: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Is it subjective to say that right and good conduct can be defined in one way as "not causing unnecessary harm to a fellow human?" In other words, can that fit a definition of morality?
If so, then apply what we know given evidence provided by history as to which actions are in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Before there was historical evidence and sciences to interpret that evidence, morality may have been sujective, but that is no longer the case.
As another poster put it - 4000 years ago, God killing a lot of children for making fun of someone was moral, but today we know better.
What are you talking about? Microsoft already has all of that.
I think Gore is going for the intellectual vote. We are only showing our ignorance by assuming that Open Source only means what we want it to mean.
Take the original latin "nopea cesoura." What Al was really trying to say was that he is not a Ceasar when it comes to posting info on his site.