Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectholding
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=29666&mesg_id=29828
29828, holding
Posted by inVerse, Fri Apr-01-05 01:02 AM
>>Better question: If this God, nor any other exists,
>what's
>>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.
>
>
>Before I consider the better question, are you willing to
>withdraw what you wrote on the other post (re: the
>tsunami/Thai sex slavery)?
>
>Of what incidence is the existence of a God in a 'real' sense
>when I or others develop a sense of right and wrong?

Because you "really" believe that right is "really" right and wrong is "really" wrong. You don't merely think they are just matters of taste, else you would not hold others against them. You would simply say "well I don't prostitute children, but to each his own". You, and every other human, believes in a real right and wrong. If you did not, if we did not, boards like this would be meaningless. The very concept of activisim would be meaningless, as anyone who was trying to get THEIR OWN WAY would be an activist in the EXACT same sense that anyone on this board is. We both know that is not the case. Why? Because some people fight for what is "really" right. Objectivel right. Not subjectively. Not whims. Not preferences. Facts. Moral facts. The only place a moral law, which is objective to human minds can come from is from a MIND which is objective to human minds. NO human mind can create an objective moral law/rule/fact.

> I do not
>have to believe that there is a real God who has the
>capability to punish the Thai population for their promiscuity
>to know that the sex trade there is deplorable.

Of course not. We're free not to believe in God. But we're not free to invert the moral order, only violate it.

>reason (JUDGMENT)
>noun
>the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments,
>especially based on practical facts. (Cambridge Online
>Dictionary)

There's a pressuposition in there. Do you see it?


>Because in the final analysis, reason is a process, not a
>presupposition.

You've just restated exactly what I said in response to your "reason is my pressuposition" statement.