Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (17322)	5/3/2004 3:00:32 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (6) of 28931

That was at least a better effort, however you are still trying to shift the emphasis away from yourself and onto my views. I freely admit the basis of the morality I hold is God. That's beside the issue we have been pursuing. You say there is no God. You say there is no transcendent basis for morality. Given that I asked in regards to Nazi Germany; <<<I would like you to show me why you would impose your values on a sovereign nation that decided to kill a certain portion of their population for whatever reason they decided>>> To this your non answer was; "I agree with using force against sovereign nations under certain circumstances" and... "I value individual rights and freedoms and I oppose religious and political tyranny." I see, so you oppose religious and political tyranny in others but it's O.K. for you to impose your own form of political/a-religious tyranny on whoever you want? <<<Therefore rights cannot be unalienable, they are just the opinion of those people at that time and have no authority over us>>> "Well, that is true. But if they speak to fundamental human needs we may perhaps be persuaded to fight to hold and keep them." You're just arbitrarily asserting "human needs" are the basis for morality without first establishing why others should be compelled to honor them. "the Declaration was about Revolution against the Authority of the King. In order to declare they had the RIGHT to liberty and freedom they had to cite a “higher” authority—one that was intangible and one that could not be deposed by either assassination or overthrow." Yes, and cite a higher authority they did. You say the higher authority they cited was non existent therefore the whole deal is based on a lie. Sounds like WMD's, (words of mass deception). Fine, just don't come whining about "RIGHTS to liberty and freedom" they are a mere contrivance, they don't exist. "Jefferson based his ideas on the philosophy of Locke--people have Natural Rights grounded in Natural Law…and demanded by Human Nature." Natural Law is based on Natural Theology which you maintain is invalid. Again; if you destroy the foundation then you have no Archimedian point to stand on. "“Creator” is in the Declaration. It is NOT in the Constitution." The rules in the Constitution are based on the principals in the declaration. Undermine the principals in the declaration and the rules are nothing but last weeks opinion. "The Bill of Rights are not Absolute values" OK, What the State grants the State can take away. What's your objection to the Nazi State doing just that?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next