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 (17611)	6/4/2004 4:13:21 PM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 28931

Happy? Anniversary! Tiananmen Square June 4 1989 Atheism in action. christusrex.org

To: Greg or e who wrote (17611)	6/4/2004 5:29:43 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"The use of the word "Ought" in the context of our discussion clearly implies an ethical obligation." Why repeat what is agreed upon? What it does not imply is that the obligation is something other than the values of human beings in a particular culture or community. "You are saying there is no ethical obligation to treat others well, only that the world would be nicer if we all took your suggestions." No, I am not. Don't keep forcing me to suggest stupidity or dishonesty on your part. Because I will not allow such falsehood to be slipped in carte blanche. I have said before that wherever and whenever people have associated together there have been social mores for the benefit (well-being) of the community (which means the individuals who compose the community). And yes...people generally do find that their world is nicer when they live by the rules they have set for that purpose. At least, it is much nicer for those making the rules. "While I'm sure that the world would be better if, as Kant suggested; "we pretend that God exists" there is simply no rational justification for doing so." You have finally said something which has been the subject of legitimate debate. Benjamin Franklin also believed that it was necessary for moral order to control the masses through the stick and carrot. It is something I think about a lot. Just as I think about the need to balance extremist insanity with other extremism. Only madmen are cruel enough to compete with madmen. Humanists, per se, may be truly incapable of defeating tyranny with guns. "In fact from a strictly logical standpoint, three men in a boat with only enough food for one of them, would dictate that the strongest one throw the other two over board. Or perhaps the two weaker men could band together and throw the strong one over and then fight it out between themselves. They might even wait until one died and then eat him" Yes, that is the way it has always worked. Although you neglected several other options that inform circumstances and cases. The response is always subjective and relative. You would save your daughter before you saved a rapist or an atheist, I suppose?? You would make a choice that was ethical for you? The wife of the rapist on the other hand would do what she thought was "right" under the circumstances. "Believers have received mercy and grace in spite of their failure to do what they knew they "ought" to have done" That begs the question once again! You PRETEND that "sinners" (such as humanists and atheists--or Sikhs) have prospered after they died. Do you offer evidence? NO!! You pretend that "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" is not truly an ethical precept but just a suggestion! How funny you are, Greg! "Where do you get this stuff? I never said they had any such knowledge. I have said people know murder is wrong." No. You said that people knew that wrong was wrong because it was "written on their heart". So tell me how a million people (with stuff written on their heart) can be "right", just because their uniform is one colour--while another million are "wrong" just because their uniform is another?? It cannot be good that good people are killed in war. It is never good to kill righteous people. But the people think it is good (if it is written on their hearts by God as you claimed). So does thinking it is good make it good? If an Absolute "good" was written on peoples' hearts...would it not be the same for every uniform? So if any "good" is written on a heart that conflicts with another "good" written on a heart, then it is OBVIOUSLY a subjective good--NOT an Absolute good. DUH! Oh, sorry and beg pardon...you hate that word, don't you?! "SWING BATTER BATTER BATTER! SWING" Too bad you decided to crawl into an out at first! Sliding would have been more dignified and manly!