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 (17713)	6/9/2004 3:01:43 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"It was the first "position" which misrepresented what I said" Well, I will consider your accusation: "Position ONE Atheists and humanists have no basis on which to know right from wrong" ////////////////////////////////////// "Given a strict evolutionary model with no God there is simply no basis beyond preference to determine right and wrong." Message 20105704 Clearly I did not misrepresent POSITION ONE. Humanists do not approach their ethics under a "God model" so according to you our only basis for determining right from wrong is "preference". Other of your posts indicate that such people have no "reason" for doing the right thing or the wrong thing. Here is POSITION TWO where you say that we "KNOW" what is right and wrong because it is "written on their hearts" "Do all the rest of us (the great majority of the world who are not Christians) KNOW what is WRONG?" They do because God's Law is written on their hearts. You on the other hand, know what is right but have no rational explanation for that knowledge. Message 20139694 In the same breath you claim that this "knowing" is NOT RATIONAL. How funny is THAT? LOL. The THIRD POSITION, that "Morality is Absolute because I say so; therefore, every time a clash of values occurs where the participants are harmed it means that at least one of them knowingly acted immorally because right and wrong were written on their hearts." is also accurate. All the evidence points to relative morality. You believe otherwise, but at no time did you give any evidence but simply begged the question repeatedly. "It's really number two which sticks in your craw because it is taken straight from the bible. You have no answer to it because you know it's true" It doesn't stick in my craw, at all. It is none of my business to control what you believe. The fact that it is from primitive and superstitious scribbles perhaps helps to explain why it is so inane and nonsensical. The fact that it suggests that when people clash in values of honest and BELIEVED opinion of right and wrong, one of them is sinning and one is doing good by resisting evil, makes it a risible statement and makes you look ridiculous. So when Aquinas, one of the most illustrious promoters of morality, suggests death for heresy he is being evil because according to you he KNOWS it is wrong. When he supports slavery as he did, he is knowingly preaching EVIL...or perhaps you agree with him. The irony is that Aquinas is the main basis for the dogma of revealed truth and the most intellectual promoter of the idea that people know all things through faith and that faith and reason are never incompatible. Whichever way you wish to make it, it is a dimwitted basis for moral treatment of others which justifies itself by saying: IT WAS WRITTEN ON MY HEART THEREFORE I KNEW I WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING So Aquinas was either evil or stupid according to his lights...and yours. And how about you? HAR, HAR, HAR**