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 (17504)	5/18/2004 1:12:51 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Religious and secular power bases all eventually wind up the same. "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

To: Solon who wrote (17504)	5/19/2004 9:40:57 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"The value of an idea has nothing whatever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it." Oscar Wilde

To: Solon who wrote (17504)	5/21/2004 12:57:19 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"You just previously ADMITTED that "they are not morally wrong in an amoral "natural" system"" LOL! That's your position not mine. "Obviously that which cannot judge between right and wrong cannot be held to have committed a moral wrong." Obviously: That's my point. Having reduced Man to just a product of evolution you (not I) have removed the ability to "judge between right and wrong". "Might is right is NOT reality in Nature." "Might is right" is all that there is. What are you smoking? Oh, so you want to quarrel about the word "right"? You're just engaging in semantics. The bloody tooth and the claw, rule in nature and we are simply part of nature. You want to hold Man to a higher standard but you provide no logically compelling reason to do so. "<<<Values, or more accurately, ethics are precisely the question you are begging.>>>" "That is totally non responsive. I explained to you how "Might is right" is NOT the logical choice for anyone who values other creatures. You had said it was the logical choice for atheists which is just plain stupid." You have not explained why we should "value other creatures". In fact ethics are what we are trying to establish. Starting with the ethic of value to explain ethics is circular and begs the question. Engaging in ad hominem is the refuge of those who have lost the argument. "nobody but a believing Christian has a basis for moral action." I never said that. I said you and all atheists don't have a sufficient philosophical basis for ethics. Other Theists would have a sufficient philosophical basis for ethics. "I guess you can shove the big book" Your prejudice is showing again.