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: Chris land who wrote (3899)	12/4/2000 4:57:46 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Chrissie, cherie, what worthwhile contribution could anyone possibly make to this non-discussion? You believe; I don't. What else is there to discuss? You can quote scripture from here unto eternity, and it means no more to me than a recitation from the Manhattan Yellow Pages. You can threaten me with the wrath of your God, and it means no more to me than assurances that I have mortally offended Zeus, Odin, Ra, or the Great Pumpkin. I could call upon all the resources of logic, reason, and science in a vain attempt to convince you that the Bible is nothing more that a vaguely interesting compendium of mythology. But what would that accomplish? You have chosen to believe, and science, reason, and logic would have no more impact on you than scripture would on me. Would any of this be worthwhile? What is a worthwhile offshoot here is a simple discussion of manners and politeness. Most people, I think, would agree that polite people respect the right of others to their own beliefs, even if they privately think those beliefs are a bunch of lunacy. Most people would, I think, agree that people with manners do not willingly cause unnecessary conflict. What does this mean, in practice? It is perfectly reasonable for you, in conversation with other Christians, to comment on what seems to you to be the absurdity of other faiths. It is perfectly reasonable for unbelievers, in the company of other unbelievers, to comment on what they perceive to be the absurdity of belief. But if you find yourself, in neutral ground, in the company of people of other faiths, or if I find myself, in neutral ground, in the company of Christians, politeness requires that we simply set the divisive topic aside. Manners also require that if we are guests in the territory of those who do not agree with us, we avoid conversation that would cause unnecessary conflict. I would never dream of charging onto a thread established for the purpose of discussion among Christians and challenging the beliefs of the inmates. It would be rude, and it would be a waste of time. Will you show us the same consideration? No? I didn't think so. Since there really is nothing in this world that any of us could say that would mean anything to you, and there is nothing in this world that you could say that could mean anything to us, I suggest that we all get together and finish the discussion after we're dead, when we have some actual knowledge of what we're talking about and some basis for worthwhile discussion. Until then, why don't you retire to the company of those like you, and leave us to our own devices?