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 (17542)	5/27/2004 5:52:58 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"If what I meant by that was that you could not choose green socks over blue then it would be absurd" And if what you meant was WHAT YOU SAID...that as a product of evolution Man has not the ability to "judge between right and wrong", then it is equally absurd. "Having reduced Man to just a product of evolution you (not I) have removed the ability to "judge between right and wrong". Evolution either prevents people from thinking, judging, assessing, evaluating, or it does not. It doesn't matter whether you are talking socks or soup. Assessing right and wrong is based on the ability to value the different consequences of actions and thus to exercise free choice toward desired values and alternatives. You might as well say that we are unable to prepare a good meal because of evolution, on the assumption that evolution prevents us from knowing the difference between shiitake and shit. Basically, it is what you HAVE said. And THAT is a juvenile concept of the world. "That is why evolutionists are are left with nothing but suggestions" Who knows what you mean by that comment. You keep wandering into the bizarre. Most educated people believe in evolution as a theory of biological adaptation. All people have suggestions. One does not need to believe any evolution, geology, physics, or algebra to have suggestions. "Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have all given us a shinning examples of evolution in action." Listen, Greg. You've gotta stop these stupid rejoinders. ALL LIFE has evolved. All people are products of evolution. But you cannot claim that evolution is either moral or dastardly. Evolution is not a moral agent. It does not foresee consequences nor does it use free choice to choose alternative outcomes. You are making evolution into an anthropomorphic creature of Will! But all that is sheer nonsense! You are a man overboard, I must say! "It would be a wonderful world if acting "in accordance with their nature" and "the intention of preserving life and promoting happiness." were synonymous" They dovetail with one another. That is not under any rational dispute. It is what you do, and it is what we all do. Where ethics differ is in the means. Where reason prevails, the social mores which lead to safety and mutual benefit are fairly standard among societies and cultures. Where there are differences, they are usually explained by the introduction of supernatural beliefs which include of necessity ethics and norms which are not amenable to assessment by reason or common-sense. "You can't establish universal ethics by starting with a universal ethic" Ethics is about how people treat one another. The answer to that can be based on caprice and without logical structure, or it can be based on the goal of human association. A rationally based ethic begins with the universal goals of all people to preserve their life and to be happy. This is prima facie and requires no justification. It is obvious that not all behaviour--not all rules, regulations, guides, and norms--are equally supportive of these primary human ethics. The first universal ethic is to preserve life. The primary means to do so involves cooperation to mutual benefit--and the recognition and acknowledgment that life and property are personal and private. "The sheer naivety of Humanist assumptions regarding the altruistic motives of people like Stalin and Mao, demonstrates that they are obviously unsustainable" Your logical fallacies simply pile up on you, don't they, Greg? Firstly, your statement is tautological and quite meaningless. Secondly, humanists are no more immune to naivety on an individualized basis than any other. This is not a question about the merits of Stalin. Both you and I perceive him as extremely unethical, brutal, and inhuman. "That's your leap of faith, but in the real world, it turns out to be a leap into the fire" You are repeatedly missing the point: The human urge to live is not based on faith. It is immanent and innate. It is the fundamental end sought by all people (and most especially religionists whom seek it ETERNALLY!!)--and it is the fundamental reason why people seek to live in an orderly and ethical manner such that the potential for life and happiness is addressed through rational means. "Stalin called people like you "Useful Idiots"." No. He did not. He called Communist sympathizers useful idiots. You know very well I have nothing but contempt for the Communism practiced by Stalin, and only slightly less for the Communism practiced at one time by Christianity.