Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82833)	6/24/2000 10:52:00 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

I think what Neocon meant is that life is a bitter pill for most people to swallow without at least the hope of an afterlife. Of course supermen like you need not subscribe to that doctrine. An imaginary set of beliefs and superstitions will keep the great horde in line while you make out like a bandit with your superior intellect and raised eyebrow.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82833)	6/24/2000 10:55:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Alas even if you invoke God you have no consistency and stability- because it depends quite a bit on the God (or Gods) you invoke AND how you interpret God's(or the Gods') word. As we have seen the concept of what God wants changes a great deal over time. The English believed in God and yet managed to have extreme instability during the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth due TO religion. The same can be said of the period of Charles the 1st and Cromwell (and several other periods actually- but I am picking two of the big ones). These periods are unstable exactly because religion is highly personal and subjective and is not the sort of thing that (it seems) it is wise to force on people, via laws. It is a matter of faith and not reason. Faith takes people to a place in their own heart- a place (it would seem) that is necessarily individual and subjective. Reason- it seems to me- is less emotionally laden, and of course less subjective. Most people do not need to look into their hearts to see that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82833)	7/6/2000 4:13:22 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

I did not say that it was necessary to invoke God to derive a doctrine of rights and laws. In fact, I have repeatedly, on this thread, stated that I think that morality, logically, comes first. What I did say was that a doctrine of rights exists within a hypothetical framework: that we are "persons", rather than automata; that we have free- will, and act responsibly; that we are by nature social, and therefore fulfill ourselves in community with others; and so on. All of these things could be "useful fictions". However, if we affirm the truth of the underlying assumptions, we must affirm the existence of God. Thus, belief in God supports the idea that morality is objectively grounded...........