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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (79833)	12/29/2003 5:02:36 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"If morality is dependent on religion and we are not religious, then it is unlikely we would stay on as moral path, right?" This if-then argument is of your own making. Show me where I have said anything like this ... I have gone to great lengths to describe how I view the establishment of morality with an individual or with respect to behavior. Morality undoubtably exists. Whether God provides it so that we can dicifer it or that it just exists as ideas in the aether that are rationally derivable; we all agree that morality exists. "The results were wrapped in superstition to force the less intelligent to comply. Whether the morality of a society originatied with a Creator God or by the rational conclusions drawn from social experience, the results are the same. There is a moral code that may be enforced via the power of your fellow men. Less intelligent or less moral men take heed. "What evidence have you of this higher power? Musty old books? Mystical experiences? How do you know those were not simply misfiring neurons?" For starters... There are the simple observations that I am not all knowing or all powerful. Yet there is an all that is beyond my personal ability to comprehend it in detail or parcel let alone have the power to grasp or control. "Psychotics do believe their delusions." My observations of the temporal universe are subject to perception and illusory data...including that data provided by lab cloak clerics you call scientists. Yet common sense reveals that there is more to the universe than my simple observations. The rational course of existence that is subject to relative cause and effect events, breaks down when you ask questions about the cause of the first cause and what was before or beyond that... unless you believe that cause and effects of the physical universe go on eternally ... and then you have to consider the meaning of 'eternity'. There is a great deal of evidence that the universe is a purposeful place and that the purposes are beyond just purpetuating physical existence. Musty old books are just musty old books except where and to what degree they provide useful information, whether it be as a guide to decent living or to building an electric generator. What do you consider a mystical experience? It may be what I consider common sense that is unfettered by fear is what you consider mysticism. Well... that is for starters ... What evidence do you have to refute it. "You may not use governmental force to compel me to comply with the results of your belief." I have no clue how that would even be possible.