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: The Philosopher who wrote (17940)	7/11/2001 8:44:50 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I've answered this once already: siliconinvestor.com If you were honest enough to apply your grounds for opposing religions to structures of law, you would find little, if any difference. On one hand we have an evolving set of laws that people choose to live under because they have decided that these are most likely to produce the kind of society that they want to live in. These laws are continuously reviewed and changed as the society sees fit. On the other hand we have a bunch of things that we're told to us by people - people no different from us - who claimed that they heard them from a supreme being, a supreme being that that won't bother to communicate with most of us. We are expected to accept these rules as revealed truth, without examining them or even considering any changes. You don't see any difference? I think you need to look harder. It's just that he includes a God, and you don't. Otherwise, there's no functional difference. I think we, as a group, have the right and the obligation to create our own rules for living, and to continually refine them through careful consideration and judicious action. He thinks we should take something written down by a bunch of people who claimed to know God and accept them as absolute truth. You don't see a functional difference? Look harder.