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 (28120)	2/24/2010 2:13:13 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 28931

Nothing new there... surprised? DAK

To: Solon who wrote (28120)	2/24/2010 4:45:22 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<<<I took the quote at face value>>> "No, you didn't. You gratuitously substituted YOUR idea of where rights come from in place of Rand's (well publicized) ideas. Thus you intentionally and maliciously folded her dead body into the straw man you created in order that you could unjustly ridicule and insult. " I did no such thing. I quoted her accurately and then challenged her statement directly. I do find it amusing to see atheists pontificating to others when their own atheist views actually saw away at the very branch they are standing on. Your own incessant moral outrage at others when you claim there is no transcendent moral standard is another prime example of just that. I immediately saw the arbitrary and unfounded basis for Rand's claim that there are moral oughts and absolute rights derived solely from what is, and Robert Nozick agrees. "He argues that her solution to David Hume's famous is-ought problem is unsatisfactory: she asserts that preserving one's own life is objectively the highest value because it makes all other values possible, but Nozick believes she still needs to explain why a person could not rationally prefer the state of eventually dying and having no values. Thus, he argues, her attempt to deduce the morality of selfishness is essentially an instance of begging the question." Molecules in motion do not have rights and neither do they have free will. What is, simply is. Majority rule and might makes right is the only "rational" position an atheist has open to them. Therefore any simple majority who is strong enough to assert their will has no moral obligation to protect anyone or anything.