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 (18751)	11/29/2004 10:50:10 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"There are no LAWS in the Constitution that come from any religious texts or that reference the superiority or the existence of any God(s)" The constitution is based on Theistic philosophical principals that were taken to be "self evident". Men have rights and governments have responsibilities to promote justice. That's a fact, and all the bluster you can muster won't change that. "The Constitution was NOT a religious document." I never claimed the constitution was a Theistic document in that it sets out Theism as it's explicit justification. The DOI clearly does state it's justifying principals, the constitution assumes them. “<<<If you want to examine a truly Atheistic Revolution based solely on reason then you need to look at the French Revolution>>>“ "If you don’t know the difference between secular and atheistic then argue with somebody who is as bewildered as you apparently are." That's very handy to avoid the question but again I am trying to speak to the underlying philosophical basis of the two revolutions and you don't want to go there. I can see why!

To: Solon who wrote (18751)	11/29/2004 10:36:38 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

"the mythological Jesus..." <<<DT is right; you are up there with the "Bush was behind 911" crowd with your mythtaken theories about the historicity of the Gospels.>>>“ "Frankly, your response is so unrelated as to be retarded. It is not about 9-11." It's not unrelated at all; it simply challenges a point that you gratuitously included and agrees with DT's assessment that it is only a fringe element that would agree with your denial that Jesus of Nazareth is an historical reality. "It is about whether or not my assertion that Jesus pleaded to be spared suffering was correct and supported by Christian dogma." "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." Clearly Jesus asked if it was possible to avoid suffering the excruciating pain and humiliation of the cross, but what He did is more important. it is equally clear that Jesus life was not about eking happiness so you are only partially correct on a surface level. However on a deeper level you still have not shown how what people want translates into what people should do. Your argument suffers from the Naturalistic fallacy. "And I have explained to you over and over again that it is often moral to break laws even though you are a criminal when you break laws." Yes you keep repeating that without providing adequate reasoning beyond arbitrarily assuming human dignity and universal human rights, which a consistent Atheistic system cannot explain. So they were ethical criminals for breaking Laws established by their society? What is the basis for those ethics that transcend societal laws?