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 (17608)	6/2/2004 9:11:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"I guess it depends on what the definition of ought, ought to be." No. It depends on whether the obligation is presumed to be to something mystical, imaginative, and not universally believed, or whether it is to social mores and laws derived from reason. "Oughts" may be primitive in concept and they may be capricious...but they may also be based on human values and reason. "I think I have argued that ethics are objective rather than subjective" No. You have argued that they are Absolute and sourced in a particular God invented relatively recently. I have argued that ethics are relative and ALWAYS subjective--although in societies which rely on reason rather than mysticism they may and do reach levels of objectivity. "If you want to maintain that they are purely subjective then you can't even use the terms right and wrong in any meaningful way beyond self talk." Even when ethics are mystically based (how much more subjective can you get!) the soldiers shooting one another for their subjective ethics still think it is meaningful!! "However you are always using terms that are at odds with your stated reality especially when it comes to blaming Theists for doing bad, evil, wrong things." I have never blamed theists for wrong things apropos of being theists. If a theist does wrong it is not because he believes in a God or Gods, but because (in relation to the concept of harm)--either he does not know or he does not care. It is no different from any other who does harm. Either you do not know or you do not care. But there will be consequences, regardless. "That is hardly any kind of victory for you since that is the biblical position" It certainly WAS a victory--not because of any of the thousands of religious beliefs--but because it belied the stupid assertions and insinuations and pretenses that those not believing in blah blah God or another were less moral or deserving! You see, Greg, the "biblical position" is PRECISELY that non-believers ARE less deserving. And "deserving" relates to value and moral worth. So, by admitting that non-believers knew right from wrong you contradicted the biblical position that atheists were deserving of eternal torture even when they did good to others with love and charity and even when they hugged their sons and daughters and perhaps sacrificed their lives for those they loved. Because the biblical position is that atheism, per se, IS unethical! So there is nothing "written on your heart" that would ensure your knowing right from wrong if you did not believe in your your your your god! Because believing in God (YOUR GOD) is biblically right or wrong. So if you did not believe in your your yur god...you very well might enjoy being a thief and a vicious little beast! Just not enuf stuff written on yur heart! "Denying God's being does not negate responsibility to act on what we know to be objectively true. I have a sufficient explanation for that innate knowledge; you do not." Then you will not mind telling me why 1,000,000 blue coats have the innate knowledge to kill 1,000,000 grey coats in the service of good and vice versa! You would be a liar if you claimed that 1,000,000 people on one side were not acting on that innate knowledge (that you claim they have)--while the 1,000,000 on the other side WERE acting on their innate knowledge?!! My explanation--that moral goals and standards and values are subjective and relative to culture and group--DOES explain that! Your assertion that they ALL know which uniform to rightly kill but that they are...what? Wayward!...is just running down a rat-hole! "One would never guess that from the way you talk when you're not throwing up clouds of ink like an octopus in distress." This stupidity is just a lack of rational response. It is the product of an empty brain. Please try to at least stay in the ring! I'm not hitting you that hard. I'm actually being rather gentle with you!