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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1161)	9/29/2000 12:00:09 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 28931

Probably relatively non-insistent.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1161)	9/29/2000 12:43:01 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

It is safe to say they're just not insistent No it is not safe to say that, and that is the point. They are not NECESSARILY *NOT* anything. What they are is determined by what they decide to believe is relatively true (or relatively beneficial, if truth happens not to be in their particular dogma of beliefs). Because they are willing to believe that their values and beliefs are not necessarily ultimately real, does not entail that they will not cuddle their beliefs every bit as much as the absolutist (whose absolutist beliefs may include the belief that nobody has the moral right to be insistent or to intrude). The only difference between the absolutist is the authority of their beliefs not the universe of their beliefs. If an absolutist believes the 12 fold path is right, he will be consistent in following it so,long as he gas the will. If a relativist believes the path is right, they may follow it to. Either can change their minds. My point is that neither is better than the other, intrinsicaly. How they certify their beliefs is not important. What their beliefs are, is critically important. The only point whwre they are forced to take a different belief IS the belief in the ultimate nature of truth. Neither of those two different beliefs NECESSITATES anything whatsoever as regards the universal set of beliefs that they choose to inform their moral code. It is contentious to suggest otherwise, correct?