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: Dayuhan who wrote (17949)	7/11/2001 12:25:14 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There is a difference in the attribution of the source. That's all. If you ask religionists where their truth comes from, they will say it is originally revealed from the divine, even if they personally got it second or third or twentieth hand. When you press them why they should believe that, in the end they simply come up with "because I believe that." If I ask you where you get the notion that, say, it is appropriate to have a law against slavery, when we get right down to it it's simply based on a belief you have that you presumably give no attribution to. Saying "we have decided this is most likely to produce the kind of society you want to live in" isn't an answer, because then you have to say why you think this, and not a slave society, is the kind of society you want to live in. In the end, you simply get back to "because I believe that." There is nowhere else for you to go. You and the religionist are in exactly the same place. In the end, every position you take comes back to some core belief the source of which you can't prove and the basis for which is simply belief and nothing more. Identical.