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 (18596)	11/15/2004 10:20:18 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

"Name calling is hardly a reasoned response" Well, I did use the word "moron" to describe him (Websters: "a very stupid person"). You may be right that compassion toward such a one would be a more reasonable response. I will think about the Locke quote before responding to it.

To: Greg or e who wrote (18596)	11/15/2004 11:37:30 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

I will give a brief summary of the following link as it addresses the Locke quote you referenced. litencyc.com This remark of Locke's underscores his belief that honesty was not a value to be held on rational grounds of a civil people--but on emotional grounds by pious people. The motive for truth was fear--to wit, fear of Divine punishment...eternal torture. He also excluded Catholics because they "owed their allegiance to a foreign prince" and Antinomians who held that "dominion is found in grace". He came to understand that Church and State were and must remain separate and that "Truth" was different on either side of the Alps...and that any Regime may believe it has the Truth. Of course, when people speak from various religious positions the talk can never be rational; it always incorporates primitive dogmas (or derivatives written by other men through the centuries)--which must be taken at face value regardless of how contradictory or absurd they may appear to thousands of other religious sects--and irrespective of how far from reason and commonsense those dogmas may stray. So although Locke's statement against atheists (and others) epitomises prejudice, intolerance, and superstitious naivety...he was nevertheless a product of his times and of his superstitions. If there were any truth to the belief that sincerity, honesty, loyalty, and other values required an abiding terror of some mythological beast of punishment, then we would surely find the prisons full of atheists (rather than mostly religious people) and we would find no divorce amongst the religious. Yet there is the statistical and rational expectation that their marriage vows (before God) WILL often prove to be a lie! So the facts do not support Locke's statement in any single instance.