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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (15547)	6/11/2003 2:16:35 AM
From: Scott Bergquist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Stalinism and Communism (not the communism of 19th century America) pass all the requisites of a religion, apart from belief in something supernatural. Stalin was deified in his "cult of personality", and was dutifully noted as the absolute cause of all "successes" in the USSR (in the manner of "miracles" resulting from "prayers".) Pithy short quotes (e.g. "Might makes Right") are inherently wrong because of the contextually vague and variable definitions of the few words they contain. They "fit" every situation, and add no value to same. Such homilies are the usual refuge of those who unwittingly recognize that Reason is absent in their cause. Now why would "God" have fingernails? And for what use would he have for stereoscopic vision? Since He would "see all" simultaneously, it is obviously through a system not employing photons and an optic nerve.

To: Solon who wrote (15547)	6/12/2003 2:39:18 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"Again, you are spouting a thoughtless Fundamentalist bromide." I could dismiss everything you say as thoughtless ramblings of a morally bankrupt atheist, but then that would not foster much of a debate would it? We were talking about what is right and wrong and how you tell the difference. You contend that morality is relative. So far you have claimed that things are wrong according to arbitrary emotional criteria. What you have failed to do, is to demonstrate why any action should be considered to be either right or wrong based on reason. BTW natural selection, commonly known as the "survival of the fittest" is axiomatic to evolution. Rape then, is simply evolution in action. If the bull elk is strong enough to defeat all his rivals then he gets to breed the females. There are no moral constraints in nature, why should humans be any different? Oh I forgot; it wouldn't be nice.