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 (19881)	4/30/2005 1:41:16 PM
From: exdaytrader76	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

All the evidence the world over shows morality to be relative to country, culture, community, religion, etc. But moral relativism is a slippery slope. For example, if a new culture was discovered, maybe a long lost Amazon jungle tribe, what if they were practicing human sacrifice and had been doing so for eons, would it then be moral? What about child sacrifice? The moral relativist would have to be ok with it, because morality is relative to culture. If the culture was fine with ritual human sacrifice, the moral relativist must be also. To criticize that it is "wrong" is to abandon relativism in favor of some sort of arbitrary "morals," which is everything that the relativist abhors.

To: Solon who wrote (19881)	5/3/2005 1:35:21 AM
From: Proud Deplorable	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I love it!!!!!!!! misspoppy.com

To: Solon who wrote (19881)	5/3/2005 11:40:48 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Denials aside it is clear that you do hold other cultures and other religions to a universal standard that seems intuitive to you. I agree! I disagree that evil is just a word game that ignorant, religiously brainwashed people (which apparently includes yourself) engage in. It really is morally evil for men to torture babies for fun. "Personally, I prefer to think in terms of what is helpful or hurtful..." Isn't that special! Sure, but "preferences are hardly morally compelling and certainly no basis for the level of judgmental vitriol aimed at those who disagree with you. "Me thinks the lady doth protest too loudly" You come across as one of the very Know-it alls that you so loudly denounce. Your position is riddled with question begging assumptions and judgments as to what is or is not beneficial and honoring. "You continue to equate "God" with "good" and therefore beg the question of the Absolute existence of the two as well as the Absolute relationship." No what I am doing is simply pointing out that universal human ethics point to, and must be grounded in, a personal universal source and that that universal source is not bound by a standard that is beyond himself. "But we certainly ARE in trouble if the the Nationalists, Racists, and religious Nowitalls continue to disregard and disrespect the opinions and rights of others because they are the privileged few on the yellow brick road to meet a humbug wizard." That certainly is a scary scenario but one that continues to ignore the fact that Atheism is responsible for far more death and destruction that religion ever has been. Take another look at your header where you fallaciously attribute the "Killing Fields" with religious strife when in fact they were the direct and consistent application of Atheistic pragmatism. "Can the human race advance beyond the killing fields, while it yet mires itself in emulating the evil traits of its many anthropomorphic Gods?" Certainly not by jumping from the frying-pan into the fires of Atheistic relativism.