Hi Richard,
-> HW> Are you saying you think you should respect the lives of all
-> >humans equally?    and their interests?
RM> I was saying that I respect the lives of all creatures, that I am a
-> moral being...
    Are you saying you just find yourself respecting creatures,
or that it's your policy to which you are committed?
    IOW if one time, one day, if find yourself not respecting
X very much...do you say to yourself..."What the hell, I'm killing
you [X] " OR  "I'd better cultivate some respect for you [X]"  or at
least act like it?
->  and that I am also an atheist.
    Fine.  Some of my best friends...
->  I was trying to get
-> the point across that one does not have to believe in a god to be a
-> moral and decent person.
    Many Buddhists do not "believe in a god".
    Secular materialists do not believe in a god.
    All may act in moral fashion.
S. Weil argued, however, that it is essentially a religious position
to adhere to the principle of holding equal respect for all humans.
   I think she meant that from your secular postition it would
not be possible to *provide justification for * such a policy.
I think she may be right.  (Note that this is NOT to question
your 'decent behavior' towards all--let's assume that.}
-> HW> then in what sense are  you, as you claim, immoral?
RM> I have been told by a few that I cannot be moral without a god.
> They  are simply wrong and I was using sarcasm to push the point
>home.
    It is presumptuous of any religious person to tell
those outside his religion that they are necessarily immoral.
Such a person would do well to examimine the morality of those within
his/her religion.
RM> I am sorry, Hal.  I guess my sarcasm didn't reach everyone.  :)
    Irony and sarcasm are hard to detect between strangers in
a written medium.  (I now label these usages).
    Hal White.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------