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: 2MAR$ who wrote (26251)	5/20/2012 4:12:10 PM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Respond to of 69300

It's obvious that you don't bother to read the posts that you are so quick to comment on There was no "deliberate older quote mining". Dawkins is all over the place on his views because he hasn't got a clue about anything outside his own narrow field of expertise. There is a clear footnote to that effect. It reads: "[1] Dawkins’ position on moral objectivity isn’t clear; he often writes like a moral anti-realist, but on other occasions he implies that moral values can be identified with natural properties." Of course describing what is is a long way from prescribing what should be. Starting with the conclussion of an argument by arbitrarily and subjectively declaring the "goal of morality" as "maximizing the wellbeing of creatures" is traditionally called "begging the question". Philosophical naturalism/scientism has absolutely NOTHING to say about the way things SHOULD BE.