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: Solon who wrote (17643)	6/7/2004 10:59:55 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

<<<Your idea of what constitutes "the benefit (well-being) of the community (which means the individuals who compose the community)" is completely arbitrary.>>> "It is NEVER arbitrary. It is based on magic, myth, might, or reason. And even in reason there is a crookedness that stinks up the entire universe..." Your specific reasons for holding others to your standards are completely arbitrary. "If there is a discernible basis for the standards of the community, then it is not arbitrary." Yes but if the standards themselves are "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:" and "Not limited by law" then they are arbitrary. You can't deny the existence of objective ethical standards in one breath and then affirm them in the next. If standards are not objective then they are subjective. What does that leave? It leaves what is. You can't get from what is to what ought to be if everything is subjective. "The fact that the most powerful have ultimate say does not indicate on what ethical basis any particular culture or tribe sets standards of behavior." I said: <<<Sure it does. If there is no objective standards to draw upon then possession becomes the whole Law instead of just nine tenths. That is why "might is right" is the logical conclusion for the Atheist who is honest enough to understand that inalienable rights are only inalienable if God exists.>>> <<<Obviously if murder is objectively wrong then I do not think it is good to do wrong. I'll leave that position to you.>>> "So the Inquisition with all of those murders was NOT a good thing..." DUHH? The couple of thousand murders committed during the inquisition pale in comparison to those committed during the French Revolution by those who humbly bowed in the "Temple of Reason". Never mind those tens of millions who were murdered by all the Atheists who ever murdered their way into power. Objectively wrong; all of them. "I have never espoused Nazism. Indeed, I am at the farthest remove from it. That was gutless retort.. You have tried to use Nazism to misdirect the poor ignorants and unfortunates whom visit this thread from time to time." Aside from the breathtaking arrogance that statement exhibits and the irony of using a word that gets flagged by the spell check to deride others intelligence; all I did was to put some real uniforms on your analogy to demonstrate the sheer fallaciousness of the analogy. War is not morally neutral like say a hockey game would be. "HOW LOGICAL is it to believe that 1,000,000 people wearing one (Nazi) uniform are ALL intentionally evil (even though it is written on their heart what is right) while every single individual of the 1,000,000 wearing the other (Allied) uniform are all good---in spite of free moral choice??!!" Aside from the obvious fact that it is entirely possible to be sincerely wrong, all the different soldiers represent only two basic positions because each side wears only "one uniform" so it does not matter how many there are or that every single individual hold the exact same motives. I have no problem saying that one of those positions is intentionally evil precisely because they knew what they were doing was wrong. OTOH you have no rational basis to make any objective ethical judgments on the matter having denied objective standards exist. You can say you don't like it but not that they were wrong in any kind of meaningful way.