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 (17605)	6/2/2004 4:56:51 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"This is getting to be a predictable response from you; to equivocate and engage in semantics instead of substantive argumentation" You are being deliberately obtuse. I made it very clear that I was commenting a distinction in order to avoid confusion. I said: "Try not to confuse "ought" with "must". Unless we beg the question by ASSUMING a supernaturally imposed set of moral duties, our use of ought assesses and informs the question" Again, you have taken the position that "oughts" are Absolute and not relative. I presume you think they are carved in some sort of spiritual stone--presumably by the Will of God. You tried to insult non-Christians by deriding the idea that ethics require no mystical explanation but are clearly the efforts of people over time and place to learn how to live together in relative peace and security. Then you were forced to admit that you COULD know right from wrong even if you didn't believe in God. But rather than accept the too obvious explanations I smothered you in, you again begged the question and simply declared that God "writes it on your heart". In other words, your "argument" (HA!) for Absolute morality is to DECLARE it as Absolute and to DECLARE it is written by God on your heart--all very amusing and all very meaningless as argument. One only needs to look at one example: A million soldiers in blue uniforms line up against a million soldiers in grey. God wrote on the grey hearts that it is "Absolutely good and right to kill the blue people." God wrote on the blue hearts that it is "Absolutely good and right to kill the grey people." And God wrote on the Quakers' hearts that it is Absolutely good and right to kill neither blue nor grey! Absolute morality?! FIE! "All you have are suggestions and moral "guidelines"." Oh! You are getting it are you?! Morality is RELATIVE. Morality is OPINIONS. Where the opinions are based on reason, sound mind, and emotional normalcy...there is some hope of a civilized society--where people cooperate for mutual benefit. BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME ETHICS. "Stalin was wrong in your opinion but your opinion isn't any more valuable than his was and it does not carry any sense of obligation either ethically or logically" Nobody is obligated to act with decency or to social mores. But there are consequences to what people do. You don't need to wear a parachute when you jump from a plane either. Nor do you need to respect human life or property. Nobody is obligated to treat others with civilized human values. If right and wrong were Absolute and "written on hearts", there would be no need for the blue and the grey to do so damn much good. But morality is subjective and relative; and where it is informed by mysticism rather than reason there is often nothing but hostile ground. Try not to confuse "ought" with "must". "Oughts" are opinions about moral obligations and duties. Opinions are not Absolute. The pretense that they are, simply begs the question of God's existence as well as His nature. If you wish to prove that the blue and the grey were born without hearts to write on, then perhaps you can begin establishing a syllogistic argument for Absolute morality! In the meantime, your pretense that moral opinions are Jesus's opinions is without logical credibility.