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 : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (8259)	7/10/2000 11:21:35 AM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

"I conclude the agnostics are the very nicest people. " You have finally seen the Light. That is the nicest thing you've ever said to me. Thank You!

To: epicure who wrote (8259)	7/10/2000 12:37:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

What do you conclude from your life experience? It would be interesting to see a study on this. I haven't bothered to search for one. If such a thing existed, I'd bet we would have heard about it. Besides, any organization that would have the interest to commission a study would probably be too biased to produce one of real quality. Life experience is so inadequate since we mostly self-select our associates. I tend to choose people who are intelligent and thoughtful and have character. My circle doesn't include anyone who would cheat on their taxes or run a stock scam. It also doesn't include any conspicuously religious people. There are a few believers and even a church-goer or two, but they don't wear it on their sleeves. The people I associate with are all very tolerant Others can do what they want as long as they don't "scare the horses." My experience proves to my satisfaction that you certainly don't need to be religious to be a good person, but it unfortunately doesn't speak to the converse. I don't know enough religious people well enough to make any generalized judgments. I have certainly encountered some lovely religious people and some despicable ones. There are probably lots of non-religious people who are despicable, too, but they don't pass through my life. My working hypothesis is that personal religiosity is a neutral factor in the quality of the individual. It would be nice to have better data upon which to make a judgment. Institutionalized fundamentalism is a different matter from personal religiosity, though. A few years ago I worked on a task force with a woman who was both a fundamentalist and a bright, effective, and totally lovely person. She later quit to do the barefoot/pregnant/kitchen routine. Boggled my mind, but her conviction was strong that she was doing the right thing and I respected that (tolerant soul that I am). Other than this one woman, I have never known a fundamentalist who didn't totally displace their brains with scripture, assuming they had any brains in the first place. As for character, I've certainly observed plenty of talking the talk while not walking the walk. The hypocrisy is disgusting. But I tolerate fundamentalism until it turns into a political lobby that threatens the rights of other citizens. At that point I consider it public enemy number 1. Historically speaking, I don't know if religion was instrumental in instituting morals and civility, as Vince says, or not. Certainly, religion does bring those things to the table, but they may have evolved anyway. As to whether institutionalized religion has been a net plus or minus in history, I see mostly the minuses. Religion too easily leads people into tribalism, as does ethnicity, the logical extension of family. Too much of a good thing, I guess. I tend to think of organized religion much as I do unions--they filled a useful role at one time but have evolved into a net negative and would best relegated to the wings. Karen