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: thames_sider who wrote (18023)	7/11/2001 10:54:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Faith vs. Science? Can you see a difference yet? But I wasn't talking faith vs. science. Please don't change my argument. It's fine to attack my arguments. That's fair. But changing my argument to one you CAN attack, then attacking that pretending it is mine, is not appropriate. I wasn't talking faith vs. science. I'm talking the basis for determinations of right and wrong. Moral decisions, not scientific ones. For example. Should women be given the same rights to leadership in society as men? The catholic church say, within the context of the church, no. Is that based on logic? science? no. It's based on faith. Now, let's assume you're not religious. (I don't know. I was discussing this with SR, who is either agnostic or atheist depending on when you ask him.) But let's assume you're an atheist. Now, how do you answer that question? And, more important, what is your basis for that answer? My point is simple. At root, when all is said and done, you come to an end point in your justification where your only answer is "because I believe that's the right thing." You may go through many stages, but in the end, unless you resort to circular argument, you come down to what you believe. You may not look to God for that belief. But you look somewhere, and there is no more scientific legitimacy to the somewhere you look for the belief than to the God others look to for their belief. Whether or not you call it God, every one of us starts with some beliefs we can't prove, we can't justify logically, we just plain believe. The religious and the atheist both start at the same point: This I believe just because I believe it. Now, if you understand that argument, but disagree with it, I will be glad to have that discussion with you. But don't change the argument, or misrepresent my position, and think you're engaged in honest discussion. Because you wouldn't be. If you disagree with me, let's find out some moral position you believe in -- whether it be that the fetus is not a full fledged person, whether it be that it is wrong to kill people simply for being homosexual, whether slavery is wrong, whether patricide to obtain ownership of the family farm is wrong, whatever moral position you want to take. Tell me what your position is. And we'll go from there. (Maybe with a few days hiatus since I'll be on a trip the next few days. But I shall return!!)

To: thames_sider who wrote (18023)	7/17/2001 3:37:45 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

JPII has appointed around 2/3 of the current cardinals, who get to, er, 'elect' the next Pope. Much scope for question there. Just ask any US RC who wants to divorce. The Pope cant stop anyone Roman Catholic or not from getting a divorce. No one has to be a member of the church and if they want to nominally be a member but not follow its rules he is also powerless to stop them. There is a big difference between the influence of someone like the Pope, and the power of a government that can shoot you. Popes used to have this power and in some places (at least the Taliban in Afganistan) religious leaders still do because they ARE the government or they fairly directly control it (which is effectively the same thing). But since neither the US nor England is a Catholic theocracy you don't have to worry about following the Popes ideas if you don't like them. Tim