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: Greg or e who wrote (17518)	5/22/2004 5:53:37 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"LOL! That's your position not mine" No. Sorry! It was you "pointing out" that... "Please do me the courtesy of noticing I am not advocating such things only pointing out that they are not morally wrong in an amoral "natural" system." Message 20129793 So that is why my criticism stands unrefuted: "You just previously ADMITTED that "they are not morally wrong in an amoral "natural" system"" so how do you now presume to attach guilt to an individual who is no more able to exercise moral judgment than a cockroach. Certainly the rest of society has done nothing wrong if a cockroach does something hurtful, so the only question is whether or not the cockroach has done something wrong. If something is morally wrong then someone must have committed the wrong--i.e. acted immorally. Obviously that which cannot judge between right and wrong cannot be held to have committed a moral wrong. It is not sensible or fair to call a ant immoral for making a slave of an aphid; so why would it be fair to call someone with mental illness immoral who likewise acted without reason but mindlessly? Morality is about how we INTENTIONALLY treat one another. It is NOT about events, per se. If you slip off your roof and land on my baby we do not call you "immoral"--even though great harm has been done. We can say that one hurt another or did such and such, but we cannot pretend it was a moral failing..." ___________________________ "Having reduced Man to just a product of evolution you (not I) have removed the ability to "judge between right and wrong"." You are all mixed up. If you look at my post I said nothing of the sort. I talked about humans incapable of distinguishing right and wrong and unable to fashion such value judgments by virtue of a mental or emotional disorder. This is only a small percentage of humanity. There is nothing in evolution which prevents people from playing the piano, doing algebra, or setting standards of behavior. Why should the fact of evolution prevent people from assessing and determining? You are just babbling, Greg. ""Might is right" is all that there is" Some might agree with you, but most people do not. "The bloody tooth and the claw, rule in nature and we are simply part of nature." You are making two very serious errors here: 1). Firstly, Nature is not singular as to what is successful for perpetuation of species. All of life competes for resources which preserve and promote life. But within species, individuals generally exhibit an ethic of cooperation. For instance, humans kill almost all other species without compunction and harvest them for food and other benefits. But killing and eating of one another is relatively rare. This is true within most species. Competition between life forms requires cooperation within life forms; and this breaks down into smaller units of Nation, City, Tribe, Family, etc. Of course, humanity is not homogeneous; thus we have wars of race, culture, religion, and so forth. 2). The fact that we are part of Nature has nothing at all to do with moral naturalism as an argument for morals. Naturalistic arguments are concerned with HUMAN nature. Trying to structure a doctrine of human morals by studying how a whale mates would be pretty stupid, Greg. "You want to hold Man to a higher standard but you provide no logically compelling reason to do so." I don't know if you are just slow or if you have a learning disability. There is something wrong when you are spoon-fed for dozens of posts, yet still exhibit the most rudimentary lack of understanding of what is being said: NATURE HAS NO MORAL STANDARDS. Cooperation and competition in instinctual creatures are NOT moral standards. Moral standards exist only in creatures capable of posing the question of right and wrong and supplying answers of various kinds. We don't talk about immoral hurricanes or immoral chipmunks. We don't lament the low moral standards of forest fires, or the high moral standards of porcupines. Everything is just flying over your head, Greg. Get with it. "You have not explained why we should "value other creatures"." For the millionth time: Because cooperation, sharing, goodwill, peace, and harmony all promote survival and happiness. And the drive for both these goals are axiomatic and innate. As I said: "Might is right" is no more logical for an atheist than for anyone else. Unless one is mightier than all others, it is just plain stupid. If people lived like this they would eventually get down to a group of several hundred survivors. These would be the most brutal, vicious, and savage human beings imaginable. Their final clashes under the ethic of "might makes right" would be the most bestial bloodbath ever seen in history. To say this is a logical way to live for an atheist or for anybody is just plain stupid. "Other Theists would have a sufficient philosophical basis for ethics." You have argued on this thread that your God is the one true God and (by extension and implication) that other religions are worshipping Gods which do not exist. If you believe that ethics come from your God, then how do people who worship Gods who do not exist (people, I mean, of a non-Christian belief) have a transcendent justification for ethics which is superior to a rational basis for atheists?? You are spouting puerile nonsense, Greg. Do you really believe that Allah is Jesus and has the ethics of Jesus?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17518)	5/24/2004 8:41:43 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

Having reduced Man to just a product of evolution you (not I) have removed the ability to "judge between right and wrong". One takes many, many , many lessons from Nature (and Evolution) 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. No a better question is not what has Solon been smoking , but where have you spent the entire main portion of your life? Out on a distant remote veranda with starving lions surrounded by demons, devils and angels of apocolypse? Of course some parts of Nature are tooth & claw, eat or be eaten . There are also many examples of maternal-love & mating for life ....amazing migrations (pilgrimage?) of 1000's of miles to "Meccas & Holy lands".....tool~making , bonding , friendships , and mutual grooming .... to even mourning the dead as some elephants & primates have been known to do. Some creatures such as the Toroise live amazingly long and gentle lives harming nothing . You just love to <font size=4> seeeeee <font size=3>evil everywhere don't you ? To justify a nurturing God and savior you would transfix all of nature inot something that has no direction , is evil and bloody ....and on the lowest planes of existence . Good Lord above , how one-dimensional of you, and you are what you <font size=4> "seeeeee ".... <font size=3> and preach... 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. Jesus Christ Almighty Greg , human beings are directly related to many of the higher primates ....we come from social groups and tribes that worshipped, lived off of , and studied/revered/feared and lived with animals for 1000's of years and lived in relative harmony . Those observations of animal behavior taught us many lessons of value , not all of them brutality you fool but many lessons of love and gentility, caring and compassion. Along comes the humanist Jesus , and you think he was on to something sacrificing himself, instead of a dozen bulls or goats as they were doing ? Just hurts to think of Jesus as a great humanist reformer doesn't it ? And was God a humanist too? Well he fashioned/created "Man" in his own image ----> so that would probably make God the first and GREAT HUMANIST , wouldn't it ? See evil speak evil and hear evil....and lo and behold evil is everywhere !