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 (28283)	3/11/2010 10:20:14 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<<<"That is a tautological statement">>> "No. It was a simple question intended (and succeeding) in discrediting your blather." I know that you THINK that circular declarations represent a huge and decisive victory over the forces of darkness but they are not. <<<"How do you know what is objectively evil when all you have is a subjective value standard?">>> "I use objectively (as I have explained to you many times) to refer to a principle that would rationally appear as true to an unbiased (and intelligent) (and knowledgeable) person." Yes yes I know you use the word "objective" when you really mean "subjective". What's new about that? I also know that when you say "intelligent and knowledgeable" you really mean those "who agree with me". Nothing new there either. "There are no such things as ABSOLUTE moral judgments." And yet you continue to make them. You see, you are confused. <<<"you have no transcendent standard on which to base such judgments.">>> "I certainly do not" You must feel like a great weight has been lifted off your shoulders. "You said you disagree with the following statement but I do not find your argument compelling so I will leave it in." It would take an entire post just to unpack all the intentionally false misrepresentations since there is not one thing true in the entire statement. "I've shown that I DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE JUDGMENTS--as does any rational person of sufficient intelligence and knowledge." Values by definition are subjective. I'm not interested in your subjective and arbitrary values. ""Would you like me to provide some examples of what I meant??"" I must have missed the "me" in that sentence when I read it. Sorry. My answer is that, if that means you cut and paste a page of rambling ranting invectives from one of your hate sites that would take a week to respond to then no; but knock yourself out. Cut and paste is easy. ........................................ <<<"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"">>> "No. You are just starting one of your dances. I USED the word in relation to the meaning of "FORCE"." That's funny because YOU used the word force in response to my statement that had nothing to do with physical force so you are dancing alone. Note the agreement of many others that Rand has failed to justify the move from is to ought (moral obligation) <<<< 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 I'll meet you back here when you come out of it... You jumped over a lot of content there. My point was clear enough. Atheists complain that no one has the right to impose their moral obligations on them but then turn around and call people evil, so when you return from your happy place, be sure to let me know. "If there was a Christian God then the bible shows clearly there is no ABSOLUTE MORALITY! YUK YUK!" Don't turn into DAK now. That sucking sound you hear is the sound of DAK and his bong.