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: Greg or e who wrote (2264)	10/22/2000 8:58:06 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

It's important because the moment we select one faith and declare it to be more "true" than all the others, we establish a base within which members of that faith can declare themselves and their faith superior to all others. This, judging from historical trends, is a situation which easily lends itself to abuse. Do you see a difference between saying all opinions are to be equally tolerated, and all opinions are equally valid or true? When the question is one that is purely a matter of faith, with no available empirical evidence, than all opinions must necessarily be equal. If we ask "is there a God, and what is God's name", than those who answer yes or no, and those who call God God, Allah, Buddha, or the Great Pumpkin must of necessity be equal. The moment we enter the realm where empirical verification is possible, opinions cease to be equal. If you say "God exists", I cannot challenge that assertion with logic. If you say "God created everything in our universe, and God created only rocks", I can dismiss that notion as nonsense, because I can empirically verify that there are things in our universe that are not rocks. A simplistic example, but I think the point is clear enough.