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 (18703)	11/24/2004 3:48:36 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

“I know you can't stand to admit you are wrong but you are. The D.O.I. is the context in which the constitution was written. It's a Theistic context.“ The question started entirely on the idea of a Christian Nation being Constitutionally based. Having had all the evidence point conclusively the other way, you now wish to argue that the DOI had a theistic base! Besides scrambling down one mouse hole and up from another like Oscar…you are also failing entirely to understand that it is irrelevant that some Deists and Christians were amongst the framers of the Constitution. What is relevant is that it was written as a legal document which intended to favor no belief system of any kind but to create a society of justice based on secular laws and reasons so that never again could humanity fall prey to the tortured imaginations of mystics and priests inventing and imagining laws out of thin air...and murdering people “legally” because they were of another faith or persuasion--or because they doubted the earth was flat or that it was the center of a void in which the sun circled it--or any other such primitive belief. You seem incapable of separating the ideas that there were and are religious people in the world but that those who framed the Constitution did so in order to place justice in the realm of reason which is the only place it can be sought. There can be no justice in the realm of superstition where what is “right” and who is unholy (and perhaps soulless like a common rat) depends on which maniac has the most followers. No, you just don’t get it. Even as you read the news and watch the brutal atrocities of religious maniacs around the world…you still do not see why the Constitution was framed by brilliant and compassionate man who wanted to put an end to a history of centuries of madness. “That really bothers you doesn't it?“ What bothers me is that your capacity to entirely ignore reason and sense is not peculiar to you…that you are the guy driving beside me on the road, bagging my groceries, or delivering my mail. “Oh??? How about Jesus Christ for one?“ First of all…even the mythological Jesus begged to be spared suffering--and implored to be relieved of death. Secondly, my comment was not about fictional characters. So as I truthfully said: "You cannot point out a single human being who does not value life for the "happiness they can eke out of it" and who wishes to "avoid suffering" within the context of their values." “It's not I that is playing word games, that is your forte. Begging questions and circular reasoning are other bad habits you seem to have“ Another one of your gratuitous spews of venom when you cannot respond to argument. “How to determine what is ethical absent a Creator is the question being asked“ Asked and answered from my side…but not from yours. You have not explained how or why it is ethical for Allah’s people and Yahweh’s people--and all their innumerable sects--to hate and murder one another simply because they “believe in a Creator”. “A criminal is someone who commits a crime or breaks a Law.“ As I explained to you: That is simply narrow-minded thinking. I pointed out that doing something illegal is not synonymous with doing something evil or wrong. Quite the contrary--it may be an act of virtue and goodness. It was illegal to secrete Jews from the legal Government of Germany. It was a crime, it was against the law--and the people who broke the law were (as you said)…CRIMINALS. But I put it to you that they were good and virtuous; and I put it to you that your outburst against those who took up arms against the Stamp Act (in which you haughtily referred to them as a bunch of criminals or similar such words) merely reflected your ignorance of the difference between law and virtue. “Of course not they grounded their concerns for justice in the Creator who created all men equally“ As has been shown and proven: the articles of the Constitution are carefully crafted in secular language and they pertain to the new social ideas of human rights and freedoms for individuals----entirely dismissing the old biblical ideas of racism, tribal superiority, the forming of political laws out of superstitious writings (shall we hang some witches today or burn alive some Albigensians) , and other such inhuman blather. “moral relativists such as yourself have both "feet planted in mid air" The air you breathe must be awfully thin to make such an irrational statement. Humanists have the very best basis for treating one another with reason and compassion: It leads to peace, safety, happiness, and human progress. It minimizes suffering and it declares to the Universe that we have rational grounds to consider humanity as valuable and worth saving. “"We believe in Masters and Johnson What's selected is average. What's average is normal“ As usual, you miss the point. And you go off into meaningless ranting. I simply said that civilized rationality reflects the mean and not the rare. That is all it CAN do. For every Aristotle, Rand, or Nietzsche there are 1000 worthy philosophers whom partially understand them. For every thousand of these such philosophers there are 10,000 thieves and murderers--or people whom have never had an independent thought about the nature of life, but simply follow the teachings of Mickey Mouse or Mickey Might. The few and the great have spoken in the world (when they were allowed). But I am afraid that the cream fills very little of the pail. “It's sad that you are so blinded by your own self righteousness that you can't see that wherever you go…well there you are“ Another meaningless leap into a bewildered state of mind…miles and miles from our discussion. “Your Utopian ideas have been tried many times and every time they fail because they fail to account for the deep depravity and undying ability for self deception inherent in all humans“ I don’t have any ideas of Utopia. I think the human race has a self interest in recognizing our biological and social commonality. I think that reason makes it plain that overall safety, happiness, and progress are furthered by cooperation, sharing, and compassion…and that superstition leaves no basis for common ground, or for peaceful agreement--based as it is on arbitrary and unsupported claims. And their assertions become more contradictory day by day as thousands of new mystics discover superstitious reasons why THEY are more Virtuous, more Holy, and more Entitled than others.