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 (28313)	3/15/2010 10:23:09 PM
From: average joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Why can't we all just be reasonable????" “Reason is the enemy of faith” Martin Luther

To: Solon who wrote (28313)	3/16/2010 4:11:58 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Question: "Do you want to argue whether or not hate and other attributes of evil are evil now??" Answer: Who do you think is buried in Grant's tomb anyway? ..................................... "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." Of course as a materialist, you can't account for any of those immaterial tools in the first place and as an atheist, you can't account for the rightness of choosing them as opposed to choosing others. You are living and operating on the assumptions of other worldviews. In fact the very ones that you love to hate. ..................................... "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" (WIKI quote) "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 original critique of Rand and yourself for that matter was that simply declaring happiness and well being as an ultimate moral absolute is completely subjective. You keep affirming that your morality is in fact NOT based on reason, but on subjective emotional feelings, but then you try to deny that your morality is based not on reason but on subjective emotional feelings. At best you have a subjective emotional preference to use reason when it suits your current (usually unstable) emotional state. ..................................... <<<Why not take your own advise??>>> "Because it was not intended for me." A typically arrogant response from atheists (the Brights) who think they know what's best for everyone else (the Dulls) but who don't want anyone interfering with their own (usually sexual) proclivities. What's sauce for the goose.... 4.bp.blogspot.com ........................................... <<<Wow! I guess we can throw away all our laws and jails now and and just skip lightly away into your atheist utopia.>>> "Your response (above) was to this: "if you try to IMPOSE your morality on me (unless you have the backing of our legal system) I will certainly retaliate" LOL!! HARDLY! Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills would see that I was obviously responding to this Rodney King like statement: "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..." I'm busy and I tire of you and your stupid, insulting remarks and circular reasoning. ............................... "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." You have not demonstrated your bare ethical assertions to be true at all. You continue to simply beg the question. The question all along has been: how do Objecivists such as Rand and yourself justify the move from what IS, to what ethically OUGHT to be. Not: "is evil (as arbitrarily defined by you), evil? In fact you and Rand have failed miserably to establish ANY trans personal obligatory ethical standards, so you just shout louder and call people names. "Absolute thinking is the garment of extreme intolerance and human pomposity--and have you not demonstrated these facts so wonderfully on this thread?!!" Atheists should talk? Message 26301951 An absolute statement if there ever was one and it just goes to demonstrate your own "extreme intolerance and human pomposity" "You see, once you decide that you know it all, you obviously forgo the ability to truly argue or discuss for meaning or understanding." You keep making my points for me only you are too enamored with yourself to see it. LOL!