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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (8557)	3/15/2001 6:05:27 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

These concepts are understandable in the proper context...one based in purpose The last word in that sentence should presumably be 'belief'? I suppose I'd agree with the faith-based view in that science cannot properly answer questions on "purpose" (in the sense of destiny). That's about as far as I agree. And principally because pure science doesn't and shouldn't try: "destiny" is not really a scientific concept. [Well, maybe it is for masters of n-dimensional string theory, or whatever rarefied hypothesis might explain time as a continuum - but my understanding ceases before physics maps to metaphysics, and my interest lapses soon after...]. No, things I find really tedious about those with this certainty of belief include: - the wish to convert others, which I often suspect is a wish to justify their own faith ('if more believe it, it's more true'?). - the bizarre insistence that because science cannot disprove the existence of their abstract and non-scientific source of belief, science is therefore wrong and they are right. - and, perhaps most of all, the stance that their "certainty" makes them a better person, innately superior or more fortunate than people of every other "certainty" - or of none. <btw, WB!>

To: E who wrote (8557)	3/15/2001 9:42:36 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Even though, it was more of a left wing jab at right wing thinking. I am aware that religious groups have attempted to proselytize weaker people's and have used violence throughout the ages. I spent several posts responding to such jabs and clarified specifically what I believe we can be universally certain about. If you want to ignor all of that and post your jabs at the monstrous strawman go ahead. If on the other hand you care to have a dialog with a human, I am available.