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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (58517)	10/11/1999 6:46:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Joan, res-My point was that the majority of the organizations themselves are NOT "Christian"! That is, they have no specific religious affiliation! Anybody -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, animist -- can join them, and anybody does! And, as I said, if you can prove otherwise, I will eat my hat. :-) I agree and never said or inferred otherwise. So what are you disagreeing with regarding my assumptions? Your hat appears safe for now. :-) Joan, if we all went around demanding proof for everything we said, this thread would be a very demanding and tiring ordeal. Just as an example, wouldn't the onus be on you to cite your proof to the above claim? Some things we simply take at face value without proof. When a disagreement arises regarding someones assumption, is it really fair to say, state your proof or the assumption is invalid? To me it would be just as fair to say, "state your challenging proof or that assumption is invalid". Questions of pure opinion or belief, because they are not measurable, rarely lead to resolution. We might not be able to find a resolution or proof. If two neighbors argue whether one mountain is higher than another, they can consult an atlas to ascertain which is correct. However, if one person feels that Van Gogh is a superior painter to Rembrandt, while another is convinced the opposite is true, there may never be agreement or proof. In fact there is no correct answer to such a debate. So demanding proof for everything one says is not logical. If someone made a preposterous claim, such as the one you cited, the opinions and beliefs of others would be axiomatic. But thanks for giving me the chance to think about this. Michael