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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (13710)	2/16/2011 4:43:44 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 69300

There are good and bad sorts in every camp, group or tribe. The religious don't have a lock on good behavior (myriad examples), just as the nonbelievers are not the reliable repository of nastiness. It's a basic human trait to lay blame for the other guy's misbehavior with the most easily recognized difference in philosophy. It's tempting as all get out. It's still not right. Despite my philosophically nonaligned status, I have a strong moral lockout inside myself against murder. I cannot arrive at it entirely by the exercise of reason, although I can certainly use reason to support it. Its source is instinctive. I imagine that [safety disclaimer adverb here: almost] all rational, intellectual people set (in the case of religion, accept) their basic premises and maxims by moral instinct. There was once a discussion of "moral law" on this thread. Very brilliant people have tackled the problem of a morality derivable de novo from first principles. In human history, none have succeeded. Religion is different because it isn't derived but handed down from a source that is claimed to transcend first principles. Since my personal combination of instinct and reason does not find a home with a revealed doctrine, I look to the de novo efforts of natural and abstract philosophy. My studies and private musings are leading me to the conclusion that we cannot, at this stage in the evolution of the human animal and our society/civilization, build a useful moral structure without drawing on a nonrational source - religion for many, instinct tempered with attentive experience for me. I conclude that deriving a system of moral law from first principles is not yet possible. cheers js

To: Greg or e who wrote (13710)	2/16/2011 8:36:08 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

LOL! My reasoned and very even-- tempered discussion on inerrancy really disturbed you from your drunken coma, eh! Very revealing! You ought to do something about that infantile temper and that vulgar mouth oozing such cancerous excrement from the depraved and perverted depths of your monstrous, uncivilized, useless, forsaken, and worm-filled innards! I guess you think your jumping into a conversation with your trademark opportunism, gratuitous bigotry, and misanthropic spews...is somehow unnoticed by others, do you? Others don’t see that you just take gratuitous opportunity to attack me with your ad hominems because you are so enraged at finding no true faith in your god-forsaken heart and you blame me for your unhappy experience...and what you and I know is your utter self contempt? Well, from now on squeak when you are spoken to, little flower! If I want any shit out of you, I will simply squeeze your ugly little empty head. Now, Skedaddle, you runt! Men have things to do!