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 (17342)	5/5/2004 10:43:45 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Are you red y? Here we go... It's too bad you seem to have lost any sense of humor; Oh well. Just don't become one of those crotchety old men who hit people with their canes. ><>I see, so you oppose religious and political tyranny in others but it's O.K. for you to impose your own form of political/a-religious tyranny on whoever you want?<>< "How does it follow that my support of force against sovereign nations in certain circumstances entails a belief that political or religious tyranny is OK by me?" It follows because the fact that you would be willing to use force against another shows that you don't really believe morality is only relative. I applaud you for this. However; by calling Theists "tyrants" for believing their morality extends beyond their own personal sphere you condemn yourself with the same charge. Don't get angry at me for yor inconsistency. If you really believed all morality was relative and culturally derived then you would not be willing to impose yurs on another sovereign culture. "Morality is a child of the heart and the intellect." That is.. how you say in America.. CRAP! You can't destroy all ground of knowing save reason and then just throw emotion in there to save you from the consequence of reason. That is irrational. I understand you wanting to do that because pure reason leads to some pretty ugly (can you say pretty ugly?) conclusions. This is clearly demonstrated by merely substituting "Supernatural" with the word "emotional" in the following statement. "You wish to add an emotional dimension to human interaction—but this invention adds nothing to truth.." In your most recent post about "TRUTH" you note that a "triangle has three angles" can be said to be true but that "value judgments are not objective truths." How is "Heart" any more than a value judgment? Unless you were talking about going to war over Geometry then you say you are willing to invade another sovereign nation and impose your value judgments on them. So when Bush does it then it's bad but for you; being so much more refined and wise, it would be OK. ><>You say the higher authority they cited was non existent therefore the whole deal is based on a lie"<>< "NO, the whole deal is NOT based on a lie! It is based on the supposition that Man is a part of Nature and that Nature is lawful and capable of assessment. In other words...REASON exists, and reason creates value (morality). Suggesting there MAY be as "Creator" behind Natures's Law is innocent enough. But it is boring, as well." Either you don't know the philosophical context behind the creation of the declaration or you are being somewhat disingenuous. Natural Law at that time stemmed directly from Natural Theology. That's a fact. The Creator in back of the unalienable rights is crucial to them having any real moral authority. Take the Creator out of the equation and you are left with only preference statements like; "I don't like murder", or "Don't like Slavery? don't own one". ><>if you destroy the foundation then you have no Archimedian point to stand on.<>< "This is your problem. Morality is relative." That remains for you to demonstrate beyond mere assertion. I think you have failed to do that so far. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are a failure or a "looser", only that so far you have failed and lost the argument.