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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (855397)	5/8/2015 10:49:40 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1577188

Nope, try again. You set up a system that has a secular component and an opponent. That is, pretty much by definition non-secular. Which is religious and that requires one or more gods. Unless we are talking about animal spirits and such .Even then, we are talking about something very similar, if the spirits aren't pleased they will punish you. So I did respond to the post as written. Just without the word games. You are getting all greasy now...no need. It was you who said there need not be a religious reference to account for moral principle, "...things like morals did not depend on the Church." I merely confirmed there had been no such reference in the statement. Here is the entire text: "The last barbican of resistance to the radical secularization of society is the teaching and acceptance by society of moral principle. Moral principle in society is demonstrated by the internalized values systems of communities. Deprecation of moral standards is accomplished through the suppression of dissension by censorship, persecution, and oppression of other view points. The natural course to this end then is to institute artificial sameness. The end game of such a plan is a socialist state." I am not clear on what your objection is. If it is, "Which is religious and that requires one or more gods." it is your insertion to the strand, not mine, making it a strawman ... an unnecessary one I might add. If you are now arguing moral principle implies or requires the assumption of divine involvement then say so but that contradicts your initial response.