|
[piano-@yahoo.com] Euthyphro Dilemma
|
Errancy Archive
|
Jul 22, 2007 16:53 PDT
|
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [errancy] Euthyphro Dilemma
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Darrel Henschell <piano-@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: erra-@iierrancy.com
| | | | MB
The theists answer is that a thing is good
|
because
| | God says so, but that is
not arbitrary because what God says is based
|
on his nature.
DOUG
And why should anyone think that God's "nature"
should
be a guide to ethics? How is that not an
arbitrary standard?
|
DAR
LOL. It's like watching someone take candy
from a baby. No, wait, it's like a wrestling
match between heavyweight and a nanoweight. Oh I
just found a picture which aptly symbolizes a
contest between Doug and Matt Bell. Doug would be
the one smiling and looking down of course.
Enjoy:
http://elvis.phys.lsu.edu/svoboda/post/figs/SumoWrestler.BMP
D.
--------------------------
"Over the centuries, we've moved on from
Scripture to accumulate precepts of ethical,
legal and moral philosophy," Dawkins says. "We've
evolved a liberal consensus of what we regard as
underpinnings of decent society, such as the idea
that we don't approve of slavery or
discrimination on the grounds of race or sex,
that we respect free speech and the rights of the
individual. All of these things that have become
second nature to our morals today owe very little
to religion, and mostly have been won in
opposition to the teeth of religion." --Richard
Dawkins
---
You've Got Questions. We've Got A Web Family (tm)
http://theskepticalreview.com http://iierrancy.com http://errantyears.com
To manage your list subscription: http://iierrancy.com/support.html
|
|
 |
|
