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 (17446)	5/11/2004 10:44:02 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 28931

<<<<"Therefore (like the crocodile) we kill, kill, and kill to EAT, EAT, and EAT! Are we being EVIL? NO!!" "In the social creatures referred to as Homo sapiens there are certain behaviours which rationally lead to profit. These include social organization for mutual protection and emotional alliances for sexual and social power. And they include treating friends and associates with honesty and fair value. And they include a tolerance of differences which do not threaten the essential harmony and survival of the group.">>>> <><Of course if you are not a friend then all bets are off. There is nothing in those empty platitudes that would compel anyone to adhere to them since they are simply opinions.><> "You are not saying anything to the point of our discussion, and you know it. Implying that religious beliefs are not opinions is pure and simple nonsense." I did not say yours was an opinion and mine was not. I am saying that your opinion does not stand up to rational scrutiny so it is not logically compelling. I think it's you that has missed the point of the discussion. I have been saying that morals (actually ethics) are not universally possible without a transcendent basis. You assert that; "obviously...rational self interest compels such people.". Not only is that not obvious, but you have failed to show that it is even rationally coherent. "Where people are incapable of voluntarily treating others in a civilized manner, then they are subject to the opprobrium and the consequence of the collective social mores. You call these social mores that have been worked out by humanity over thousands of years of trial and error, and struggling civilization..."empty platitudes"." You keep conveniently forgetting that humans have always pointed to a transcendent basis for the the things we all know are right and wrong. You want to eliminate that transcendent basis but keep all the benefits. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Even if you hold your breath until you turn purple.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next