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 (28167)	3/5/2010 1:16:56 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

<<<Rand simply manufactures purpose Ex Nihilo where (from a materialist perspective) none rationally exists.>>> "You don't understand. It is not whether or not intention exists in an imagined being; rather, it is about the intention (purpose) of the individual." I understand well enough that an individual subjects intention equals a subjective purpose, not a universally objective one that one can be imposed as an obligations on others. Many others have voiced this same objection that Rand has failed to justify her leap from the is to the ought. noblesoul.com So are you an Objectivist yourself? "Again, although Rand would never presume to assume knowledge of the unknown, she nevertheless is clear that the KNOWN is MAN…with NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ACTUAL SENTIENT BEING BEHIND ANY OF THOUSANDS OF SUPERNATURAL MOVEMENTS/BELIEF SYSTEMS." You do know that capitalizing entire sentences is considered SHOUTING and that it does nothing to increase the truth value of a statement? In fact the old saying "weak point: pound pulpit" immediately comes to mind. Again the preposterous position that there is "NO EVIDENCE..." for God, is just puff and bluster. "if one does NOT believe that one is the pet or toy of some other sentient being, then one must reference purpose within oneself." You are agreeing with me. Thanks. "So when we talk about “purpose” we must always be aware of three elements: Is the speaker committed to the belief that the purpose is the purpose of another?? Is the person committed to the belief that the “purpose” is the purpose of SELF? Or is the person confused as to what they believe?" Clearly you fall into the third category since you and Rand are trying to turn your personally and subjectively derived purpose into an obligation that others must follow. Having deluded yourselves into believing that you could "replace God" you have set about your work of issuing the new commandments. "That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?" (Nietzsche Thus spoke Zarathustra)