To: Greg or e who wrote (18794 ) 12/1/2004 8:14:29 PM From: Solon Respond to From your site:"One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. Fortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation "before he goes extinct. The families of the murdered victims call it "bad." It is for people to decide whether to live rationally (which is the consideration of FACT) or superstitiously (which is the promotion of fantasy, chaos, and meaninglessness). Rational people understand that it is "good" to increase value for others, and it is "bad" to lower value...a rational construct being understood. Rational people understand that where there is interdependence, there is a need for qualities such as honesty, loyalty, respect for property, etc. Superstition is a gross system which condemns itself to rules rather than to fact. Rules may only address the general. Rationality addresses the particular. So the primitives of "the Bible" have no problem with murdering an old man for building a fire to keep warm or to cook on a Sunday (a day of the SUN GOD). But what rational person would consider "gathering sticks" as a crime worthy of execution and then eternal torture in "HELL"?! Civilized people would help the man to gather sticks--or they would give him warmth, food, or shelter. But superstitious people are NOT civilized...and THAT is the crux of the matter.
