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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (321)	3/1/2002 8:15:55 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

And us Frisbeetaryians believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and no-one can get it down.

To: Neocon who wrote (321)	3/1/2002 8:17:17 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I would still call it a severe stretch to interpret Hinduism or Shinto as monotheistic. Nor do I see how you can say that religion is best expressed via the 'reflections of philosophers' - rather than the 'tales' which are the very bedrock of those religions - the Ramayana is not just a 'tale' to a devout Hindu, any more than the Koran is just a book of fables... The Crusades were not merely a serious of religious wars Let me see: a series of invasions are called by the Pope, to go and smite the Mussulman and remove him from Xtian holy places (which have not been under Xtian rule for 2-300 years...). Oh, whoops, some of them involved sacking Byzantine towns too - ah well, they're not real Xtians are they. And the lands weren't restored to Byzantine rule, even when captured. Maybe there's some political subtext, who holds the real power in Europe, etc. It's definitely not arbitrary butt-kicking - but who says it was? Again, I can't see how they can possibly be classed as other than a series of religious wars. Heresy, defined cynically, is any form of religious belief which claims the same holy authority but does not match yours. Which, with revealed truth, should surely not be possible. Is it mystical nonsense to believe that there is an underlying order and meaning to the universe? Order? Not necessarily. Meaning? (i.e.,purpose)? in the plainest sense, yes. We, as intelligent humans, can attribute meaning as we will, and behave as though such were the case - it does not make it so. Is there something wrong with believing in the Fatherhood of God, and therefore the Brotherhood of Men? Leaving aside the gender terminology <g>, not as such. But it does not make it true or real - even if it does make us feel better, and make life nicer for more people. Nor does it seem to - I don't see the most Orthodox Jews being the most zealous to welcome and succour their Palestinian brothers, in fact they seem the most hate-filled persecutors, zealous only in their mindless, brutal deathwishing on beings their 'God' tells them are lesser. (Hence some of my loathing of religion). Is it superior to believe that morality is just what a society happens to believe at any given time, and that we are not called to improvement? It depends whether you improve. I don't feel I need an invisible pixie to indicate how to live a better life - especially when the first precept of such Pixie is invariably to order me to live in accordance with Its laws. I don't believe that we are 'called to improve' - but I know that we can. Life is what you make it. Believing in an almighty ruler may help you make life better... or worse... the answers should lie in you, not in what someone tells you to believe. I certainly don't believe that we inevitably will improve and prosper, regardless of reality, because such is the Alfather's Will - and I think this belief is genuinely harmful and dangerous to our continued survival as a species.

To: Neocon who wrote (321)	3/1/2002 8:30:50 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

There is as much or more reason to respect and give privileges to the various religions as to subsidize museums or symphonies or charities... I missed this - and I absolutely disagree. I can learn from a museum, and see how others learn and grow. A symphony can be a thing of incredible beauty (although I wouldn't subsidise most since about 1905), one of the finest works of human creativity. A charity helps others, or works to alleviate some social or environmental ill. A religion does none of the above (or it can - but all are better done by secular bodies). Instead it might fund anti-scientific actions and anti-progressive laws - I'm glad to live in a country where my children may learn about evolution, and have healthier lives from stem-cell-based treatments, and not be kept endlessly pregnant to meet some ancient mumbo-jumbo. Or religions fund anti-Western schools: and inculcate the gullible into fanatical murderous hatred of non-believers. Or religions campaign for segregation, and that people who are different are evil, or less than human, or damned and forever full of sin. Or religions simply perpetuate the plutocracy, the aristocracy, the rule of non-elected, meritless nothings becasue of the positions of their forebears. Subsidise this? it should be taxed like any other harmful stupidity.

To: Neocon who wrote (321)	3/1/2002 10:10:17 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

Is it mystical nonsense to believe that there is an underlying order and meaning to the universe? Cause. There is no case known (nor indeed is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is impossible to go on to infinity. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. [Summa Theologica, 1.2.3] Purpose: We see things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their result not by chance, but by design. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God. [Ibid.]