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 (18409)	7/16/2001 10:01:12 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

We all decide what we are going to believe. Bravo. That's step one. All you need to do now is add step two, and you're there. Some base their decisions on observation, study, comparison, discussion, thought. Others base their decisions on "I hear and obey". I don't know who your religious friends are, assuming you have any, but that's really quite a stilly, not to say obnoxious, statement to make. Many Christians are better scholars than you or I will ever be. St. Augustine based his Summa Theologica very much on observation, study, comparison, discussion, and thought. Ministers study for years to gain a vocation. The Pope may well be the most learned and educated leader of any nation in the world -- name a national leader who is better educated than he, who can speak and read more languages than he, who had studied and thought more than he about the essence of what it means to be human. Your statement shows a remarkable lack of understanding and a disappointing bigotry. And on top of that, you still need to take step two. When you say, thinking you only refer to yourself, that "ome base their decisions on observation, study, comparison, discussion, thought" you continue to fail to understand that before you can observe, study, compare, discuss, or think you have to start with basic, unprovable assumptions. I don't know what your assumptions are, but one probably is that reality exists, that this is not purely a dream world, but that when you see a rose you are seeing something real. There is, of course, no way at all for you to prove that. It's something you take on faith. You take on faith the existence of the rose just as the religious takes on faith the existence of God. You may claim that your are different because you touch the rose and feel something, but of course you don't know that you feel anything, because people in dreams also think they are touching actual things. Just like the religious, you start with basic unprovable things that you take purely on faith. And then, like the religious, you think about, study, observe, study, compare the world with the lens of your assumptions. And your arrogance in believing that your lens is THE true lens and the other person's lens is a false lense is precisely the same arrogance that some (not all, but some) religious people have. No difference.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18409)	7/16/2001 10:03:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Look through human history, and see which type of decision-making has led societies to flourish, and which has led to stagnation and collapse. Hmmm. Okay. America. Founded on basic Christian principles. Flourished, or stagnation and collapse? USSR. Founded on atheism. Flourished, or stagnation and collapse? Yes, you're right. Christianity is the formula for a flourishing society; atheism for a stagnant and collapsed society. We are in agreement on this, at least.