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 (18683)	11/20/2004 8:54:45 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 28931

<<<that's not historically accurate>>> See the last post. The goal to "establish Justice" in the opening line of the Constitution has it's basis in the Theistic underpinnings of the Declaration. Your "opinion" is just that, your opinion. There are six billion other opinions, so what? It does not stand up to rational scrutiny. "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." Besides being entirely arbitrary, this argument clearly commits the Naturalistic Fallacy attempting to move from what is to what should be. If wishes could be fishes then you would have a rational argument, but they can't and you don't. "It was you who claimed the Stamp Act was legal." I don't think the objection to the Stamp Act was on the basis of legality; rather it was a moral objection. If objective morality is nullified by the Atheistic position which denies such things are true, then the revolutionaries are simply common criminals. "Your premise seems to be that it is ethically meaningful to condemn people as criminals if they do something illegal." Maybe you were tired when you wrote that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that indeed is my premise. "That is a childish idea. It presupposes that all things legal are also good." No, it isn't and it doesn't. It is completely rational. The question of the objective rightness of a particular Law is another issue all together, but if no objective good exists then the Law is all you have left. You have the cart before the horse yet again.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next