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 (28276)	3/11/2010 6:08:37 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"You called the actions of the followers of God, objectively morally evil. "Do you want to argue whether or not hate and other attributes of evil are evil now??" That is a tautological statement. How do you know what is objectively evil when all you have is a subjective value standard? I'm simply pointing out the difference between listing abstract attributes and making absolute moral judgments on people. And further: that you have no transcendent standard on which to base such judgments. "He is intolerant to everyone but his own, and even there he is mercurial, capricious, inconstant, and violent. He evaluates all matters in accordance with his feelings, and gives no heed to objective values or ideas." "Do you disagree with the above statement??" YES! <<(You claimed that) "His followers used that as an excuse to commit evil deeds and "emulate" evil traits.">> "Do you disagree with that statement? Would you like me to provide some examples of what I meant??" I'm not disputing that someone somewhere may have used God as an excuse to commit and evil deed. I'm challenging your ability to move from expressing subjective opinions to pronouncing absolute moral judgments. And No; Don't you know what you meant? ((("You are using absolute moral pronouncements to impose moral obligations on to others"))) "Again, you perhaps do not understand the meaning of the word "imposing". In its clearest sense, "impose" means to use force." Impose Inflected Form(s): im·posed; im·pos·ing Etymology: Middle French imposer, from Latin imponere, literally, to put upon (perfect indicative imposui), from in- + ponere to put — more at I'm obviously not using the word in a physical sense I am using it quite clearly in the sense where a moral obligation is "put upon" another person through accusation which is implicit in your absolute judgments about the moral status of other human beings. That's the very thing that atheists complain so bitterly about in others. I guess it's just shut up and do what the atheistic authorities say. <<I have shown quite clearly that abusive language (like calling someone evil) is also a form of force>> "So I guess you mean that naming hate and other attributes of evil as evil is what--the "force" of intellect??" Asked and answered. "Is it time to discover a God based on".... Solon's subjective value standards that he cherry picked from Liberal Christianity since he promises he will be a good god: not like that other guy. A chicken in every pot! That's what this thread is really about but unfortunately for you, it's not a popularity contest and God is God whether you acknowledge Him or not.