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: Greg or e who wrote (28311)	3/15/2010 7:56:37 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"Who do you think is buried in Grant's tomb" I refer you back to the original post where I mocked you for being so mindless and out of the blue... Message 26380335 "It is very clearly a subjectively derived objective however." AS I said: "I use the word "objective" when I mean "objective"--just as I told you clearly in the post." "This makes your sliding scale of objectivity completely subjective." NO. you are misunderstanding again. All people are subtractive by virtue of being individuals with a unique point of view. But whether or not they utilize the tools of reason and logic to objectively close in on the objectivity of reality...that is the matter being referenced when we speak of objective versus subjective. No matter how objective I consider a person, I also consider them at least a smidgen subjective by virtue of their humanity. We may consider that reality is objective because reality is and because reality has no point of view. This is not the same thing as saying it is constant or dependable but it IS something--and that something can be objectively assessed through the objective tools of mathematics, logic, reason, necessary relationships between reality states and so on. When rational, objective people claim their moral values were carefully chosen through the use of rational objective tools, they do not claim their values are Absolute--not at all. They only mean their values derive from sound thinking and not the mindless embrace of primitive dogmas or the slavish adherence to community spokespersons or Institutions. As I said to you: "Human values are HUMAN VALUES. How "objective" they are depends upon the impartiality and the rationality of the person making the judgment!!" "Human values are a set of emotional rules people follow to help make the right decisions in life Well, moral values are conceived as to the effects they have on happiness and well being so the feeling contingent is usually present when determining right thought and right action. The point of "human values" in my sentence (in case you are unable to grasp it, yet) is that HUMAN is not supernatural even thought the human may choose values based on superstition as opposed to sound reasoning. If supernatural values existed they would be preferences or principles chosen by a supernatural entity or community and would therefore have no value to humans whom (as we have agreed) choose their values to best meet the desires, needs, instincts, and longings of HUMAN NATURE. "Why not take your own advise??" Because it was not intended for me. It was intended for you. Different advice for different people. If you are looking for a new pair of shoes I don't send you to a whore house. I happen to be looking for shoes. "LOL!! HARDLY! Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills would see that I was obviously responding to this Rodney King like statement:" My response was to your idiotic and completely untruthful remark: "Atheists complain that no one has the right to impose their moral obligations on them but then turn around and call people evil" My full response was: Atheists are individuals like all the thousands of competing religionists in the world. They have no standard complaints about anything. Some like their eggs over easy, some sunny side up, and some don't like eggs. Why this stupid talk?? If I call someone evil it is because I am expressing an opinion. You have every right to express your moral opinion just as I do. But if you try to IMPOSE your morality on me (unless you have the backing of our legal system) I will certainly retaliate. Because if you need to force your values on me it stands to reason prima facie that you are either evil or irrational because if your values were reasonable and rightful I would not need to be forced to them. And I see (after you have been thinking for a week--or it seemed like that) that you have decided to continue with your straw man collage where you switch a limb of one straw man to the torso of another then change the head and so on and on. AND finally you quoted me: "if your values were reasonable and rightful I would not need to be forced to them." The full quote was: Because if you need to force your values on me it stands to reason prima facie that you are either evil or irrational because if your values were reasonable and rightful I would not need to be forced to them. What that means is that reasonable and rightful values take account of all members of homo sapiens within a community and therefore you are either evil or irrational in the above hypothetical. "Why can't we all just be reasonable????" Only people who are equipped to use reason as a primary tool of problem solving can hope to reach a consensus on what reasonable is. For the religious, there will be as many answers as there are religions or superstitious viewpoints. For rational people there is a reasonable compromise even when assessment and analysis differ slightly or are skewed slightly by the subjective point of view or bias. This is why monotheistic religions only live with community values under the strongest compulsion of legal weight because their morals (being imagined as Absolute) are (of course) different in the core and the details--and there can only be enforced "tolerance" between such bigoted, irrational, and incredibly SUBJECTIVE groups. Absolute thinking is the garment of extreme intolerance and human pomposity--and have you not demonstrated these facts so wonderfully on this thread?!! You see, once you decide that you know it all, you obviously forgo the ability to truly argue or discuss for meaning or understanding. And because your "knowledge" comes from a blind belief in certain dogma as Divine and Truthful--it follows that you are not amenable to reason and that you can have nothing but contempt for the rational atheists and the superstitious advocates of other religions or points of view out there. Do you see how well I understand you??