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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (16322)	6/9/2001 6:54:58 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It's amazing that for all your knowledge you have never heard of "GENERAL REVELATION It is amazing that you would presume to invent an answer to a pretended question! Schoolyard stuff, Greg. I am sure you have come beyond that. Poor logic, poor argument, and a very false conclusion! Nobody can argue you out of a position you are holdind on the basis of superstitious belief. Empiricist studies across cultures, however, show clearly that cultures develop principles specific to their relative circumstances, and that the objectivity of their principles depend on the degree of accumulated knowledge, and on their ability to reason consequences of this applied knowledge. The fact that there is also tremendous commonality speaks to our shared bilological roots, and to the mechanisms of our bodies and our brains. You can accept or deny any propositions you wish to simply on the basis that general revelation is real, and that it is from God even when we do not understand it. You can go further, you can use your special revelation, as a superstitious person, to deny the validity of all science and reason when it challenges any of your transcendental truth. If you are going to use mysticism as your argument, I can't go there--and you are well aware that I do not consider it an argument. Moving along... Sympathy is an emotion and if it must inform reason then reason is no longer a sufficient basis for determining morality The practice of morality, and the effects, involve value judgements based on feeling. It is the feedback of the whole creature to the intellect which modifies the reason so that it can rationally seek to determine what it is that "matters." Nothing "matters" to the unattached reason. The dissevered reason has no basis for preference. Preference comes from feeling; and how we pursue feeling is determined by the ability of our reason to predict consequence--by the comprehensibility of our inferences. there is simply no way in a Godless universe to move from "WHAT IS" to "WHAT SHOULD BE" This is a fallacious line of thought which presumes transcendence as axiomatic. The empiricist and biological basis of "ought" is that it is simply another "is." "Oughts" are merely opinions of self interest. They are realized every day. The "is" and the "ought" are like the alternating rocks crossing the creek. They are relative in the same way that transcendental arguments are relative. They are the difference between a man's reach and his grasp. They are only absolute "oughts"to the individual who cannot see his own hand because he has it stuck into another dimension. Are emotions not subject to the same charge of arbitrariness I would suppose that emotions are about as arbitrary as the thoughts which provoke them. If you say they arrived at their conclusions through superstition then you can't claim them as also establishing your position through reason alone. I didn't say that. I said that in many cases the reasoning process is available for examination. If you wish me to choose an undisputed secularist, and to quote his writings in order to trace the development of moral principles through reason which is thoroughly uncontaminated by any hints of the otherworldly--just let me know. I considered the point too obvious for serious discourse, as you and I are surrounded by innumerable people who illustrate the premise. Rather, I have shown that they acted in a manner consistent with the biblical teaching BUT they were not using biblical thinking!! The bible had not even been scratched out yet! You're trying to sneak by, using emotion and the arguments of Theists which you have admitted are illogical and unreasonable, in a failed attempt to establish logic and reason as a sufficient basis for morals. The demonstration I gave you was offered to prove that your claims that moral principles are absolute, and must be realized through the Christian God, were WRONG. I explained fully to you the point I was making. Now if you accept the point as made, i.e. that moral principles are held by people in all cultures through all times, and that they do not owe their discovery to Greg's God--then we can move on to clear away the final cobweb (which for some reason seems to want to stick to you), as it appears in the rest of your post. Given the assumptions of moral relativism, is pedophilia objectively wrong???? Are you wearing ear plugs?;) Perhaps I will answer you again! Yes, it is objectively wrong--for me. I will keep saying it in different ways until you get the picture! Even if you are at the lowest levels of human development, and sense no commonality with your kind, you still need to know that if you hurt others--others are going to hurt you.. If you need to ask a minister before you can determine when you are hurting someone, then you are deficient in reason, and you are emotionally unable to escape the boundaries of your own skin. Therefore you lack both requirements for objectivity: You are neither able to see nor to feel. If you are objective, then you can make correct choices. And if you are not objective, well--then you might be obedient which is at least something. Yes I do know about God's wrath Then please stop exalting non Christians who break 3 of God's commandments, above atheists who break none of them. And please tell God to stop being hateful, and to stop hurting people. Let me know what He says.

To: Greg or e who wrote (16322)	6/9/2001 10:29:50 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes I do know about God's wrath and you are standing under it. Praying for the dead is not part of my Theology, but I will continue to pray for you. Do you ever begin to gag or suffocate inside that narrow little box of the " Great White North " evangelical self~righteousness ? This must be so upsetting to you: religioustolerance.org So you are trying a little rationality for a change, though it is hard to do after having your mind in a cast for so long ? Wonderful to see the change in you , and your own Deism expanded just ever so slightly if only just so narrowly so. You see Jesus is Lord after all ,and does work miracles.<g> Meanwhile , try and open your mind just a little and you will discover the Biblical truths you hold to be the only truths for all men , are not novelties at all and give you no special place in the field of time and real space. What Jesus called truth , was already ancient by the time he arrived , and actually still evolving ...for those humble and alert enough to witness it. <gg> Mars PS: I see you have long since given up trying to enthrall all here with sightings of Biblical Miracles and feats of the supernatural.I guess those arguments for the superiority of your beliefs just turned out to be as narrow , fantastical and irrational as you are ?