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 (18575)	11/10/2004 1:10:12 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Darwin did not invent the fossil record anymore than you invented original sin.

To: Greg or e who wrote (18575)	11/12/2004 3:45:39 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

“You are just evading the real issue by engaging in semantics.“ That is untrue, and you know it. I was responding to this remark in which you pretend, that because evolution is not a religion with a moral dogma, it follows that humanity and individuals cannot formulate “oughts” and “ought-nots” “Evolution does not result in any "ought" at all, either positive or negative. In fact if evolution is true then there are no transcendent ethics that we "OUGHT" to or are obligated to follow“ You followed this with the non sequitur of: “Therefore people are ethically free to do whatever they find advantageous“. There are at least 3 fallacies folded within your comments: 1). People cannot have standards of right and wrong unless they get them from the thin air of some religion or another, 2). Laws of Nature (such as evolution) somehow mysteriously prevent people from implementing ethical standards of conduct and social behavior, and 3). The freedom to think and to act suggests that acts may not be judged, valued, or regulated by social and individual standards, mores, and enforcements. Comments like these remind me of the dog who ate his breakfast twice each day, after passing it through--and eventually withered from starvation. “Reason alone, from an evolutionary standpoint, would dictate dog eat dog, the strong eliminate the weak“ Reason DOES NOT dictate that. People who think like that are generally in prison, hospital, or the cemetery. Even animals know how to cooperate and to work together for common goals to promote safety and survival. Reason has shown us that all life is related in a mutual interdependence. Reason has taught us the value of working together for our common safety, freedom, and progress. Reason does not teach you to burn your neighbor’s house or to rape his wife. Maybe the “reasoning” of an idiot who sees no difference between a beating in a prison cell and a walk through a meadow. “Ya right. More semantics…“ That is just more crap you are spouting. You said he was “trying to sneak Transcendence into a godless world". I said that he was probably using the common usage in Webster’s as “the moral and emotional nature of human beings“--or even that he might be religious. In either instance your remark would be nonsensical. You may learn a great deal from reading the following article. But you will NOT find any support for your idea that he was trying to “sneak Transcendence into a godless world”. He actually is a wonderfully clear and open-minded scientist and writer. rit.edu phschool.com “You demonstrate my point very nicely. Ignore, evade the question, deny any standards exist.“ More nonsense. I addressed the question: You were trying to be a wise ass with your remark about sleeping with an unmarried woman (a reference I had casually mentioned a month or so ago). I responded directly to it by mocking the moral arrogance of your tone. Your current accusation that I am denying that any standards exist is pure fantasy and a complete invention. Certainly, premarital sex is morally acceptable to the majority of Americans and thus it is a moral standard. catholicexchange.com But more than that…it is likely that close to 100% of adults have had sex with an unmarried woman, And it is a near certainty that every heterosexual male who has ever read a line on this thread HAS HAD sex with an unmarried woman. It is far more likely that any one male has had sex with an unmarried woman than with a married woman. Most ADULT males (of course) have had sex with both married and unmarried women--even though it may sometimes have been the same woman. Likewise, most woman have had sex with an unmarried man OR with a man other than their husband--before, during, or after their marriage. About 40% of 15-19 year olds have had sex with more than one partner. So what about you, Greg? Did you ever have sex with a single woman or girly?! Don’t bother answering. I know the answer within an error probability of .02178%.