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: Neocon who wrote (14500)	5/26/2001 5:08:18 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And why should we need to rely on the invention of God to make life meaningful? What if there's a God and he just doesn't care about us anyway? With all the ridiculous garbage that's been done in His name throughout history, that would be a reasonable reaction. Maybe God doesn't particularly enjoy the idea of Jerry Falwell and L. Ron Hubbard claiming to be His earthly envoys. At least Hubbard was relatively honest about the profit motive in his peculiar interpretation of God.

To: Neocon who wrote (14500)	5/26/2001 6:02:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You don't understand atheists and agnostics any more then Karen and I understand theists. And fwiw I don't think you understand the religious very well either. I understand you think you know a lot. I suppose if that makes you happy that's a good thing. But I know of no atheists or agnostics who think there is no "value" in the nature of things. I've no idea how you came to such an odd belief. I understand that for you, life would be a howling black depressing void without your conception of God. You've mentioned that often enough. But you really must try to believe that in some people there exists an almost boundless sense of joy, without religion. It's probably just the wiring of our brains, and I for one am grateful for it. I accept that the religious feel this joy, or something like it, because they say they do (although I can't imagine how). With all your talk about reading and the wonderful way it transmits experience, I would have thought you would have realized this. But I'm telling you again for the umpteenth time. Not that it will make any difference.

To: Neocon who wrote (14500)	5/26/2001 7:03:59 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

at first, I thought I would overlook it, as a courtesy. That suggests that I offended. I didn't mean to. I was just responding to X's message in kind. "Turd" is a bit strong but seemed to fit the spirit of the discussion, which was X's reaction to something Greg posted. You and I keep coming back to the same old discussion about nihilism. You find uplifting the notion that there is some supreme being, some absolute truth, some afterlife, and you accept the implications of that for humanity. That just doesn't resonate for me. I find the religious package demeaning, not uplifting, although some versions less so than others. Maybe it's just a matter of temperament, Neo. In an office environment I have observed this category of people called "pleasers." They've bedeviled me for years because I can't really relate to or respect their attitude. I liked to think that I got paid to be insightful and to use my tools to move things in the preferred direction, which I helped determine. I prefer cats to dogs. While dogs have a certain charm, I can't help thinking of them as hairy sycophants with wagging tails. When I see the religious prostrate themselves literally or figuratively, it saddens me, I'm so embarrassed for them and for what their obeisance conveys about the entire human race. I'm trying to explain this as simply and honestly as I can. I prefer a philosophy that appreciates humans for the wonderful creatures we have the potential to be. I prefer Bach and Wagner and I can't stand country music. To me, religion is like country music. I don't want to live in a world of "amazing grace that saves a wretch like me" or "another somebody done somebody wrong song." (I almost posted wretch instead of turd.) I don't want to follow some set of pre-ordained rules for simpletons. I want to be part of setting the direction, even if what results is the exact same set of rules. I want the human race to own them, not have them handed to us. My spirituality is about being the most evolved being I can be. That's similar to yet different from trying to please God. Why we should find it better that we care about certain things, when the truth is, all of it is inherently indifferent, beats me. We can't know the absolute truth. Unless we accept that and go with the flow, we have the choice of spending our lives searching in vain for it or convincing ourselves of the validity of some traditional truths and follow them. Or we can accept it and free ourselves to proceed in a way that seems best for humanity. I know that that doesn't work for you, but it works for me. Temperament, maybe. If there's a void, I don't mourn the emptiness, I take the opportunity to fill it with something I find uplifting. Regarding turds, I think that an approach to life that has humans playing second fiddle to angels and prescribes kissing Hank's ass moves people closer to turd status than one that starts with water and electrical impulses and provides the opportunity for limitless transcendence. I'm sorry I distracted you from your manuscript. The last thing I want to do is hamper your productivity. But I'll be happy to serve as a convenient excuse. Karen