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: Greg or e who wrote (18680)	11/20/2004 1:58:34 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 28931

"You claim that, but that's not historically accurate" It is accurate. It is my opinion and it stands up to all rational arguments. It is a part of our biological nature to avoid suffering and to value life where we can eke out any happiness from it. It is part of our rational nature to understand the sort of ethics which lead to peace and which promote the best opportunity for each individual to live a life of joy and value. "Humans are also selfish and violent by nature" There is indeed some violence in people depending on how primitive they are and how removed from reason and awareness of human interrelationship and dependency. People do not have a consistently advanced "nature"--or capacity to reason. But nor is such claimed. What is claimed is that not all ethics are equal and that there is a meaningful ethical difference between living superstitiously and getting unconsidered "values" out of thin air and claiming them superior to thought and reason (as well as being superior to all other superstitious values lifted out of thin air)-- and the ethics of living as mature human beings who have learned that the survival of humanity rests on choosing reason over superstition. It is the difference between children who have no capacity for reason to subdue their primitive impulses...and adults--some of who have left childish beliefs in their infancy. "So then the revolutionaries were simply common criminals" It was you who claimed the Stamp Act was legal. You may also claim the moral objectors were criminals, if you so choose. I think it shows a pitiful lack of understanding, but it is your choice. Your premise seems to be that it is ethically meaningful to condemn people as criminals if they do something illegal. That is a childish idea. It presupposes that all things legal are also good. This would make the actions of Hitler good; it would make the Inquisition good; it would make the centuries of slavery of women and Blacks...GOOD. Sorry...legal does not equate to moral. Especially where what is "legal"...is determined by those who rule in Superstition.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next