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 (3690)	3/20/2002 1:32:11 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Hi Neo, I've been following the discussion of religious belief vs. atheism/agnosticism that you and Karen have been having and I really liked and agree with what you say here: I consider it strange and irritating of professed agnostics to portray believers as irrational. In the absence of certain knowledge, one is at liberty to opine, and belief in a deity is surely no more irrational than denial of a deity. Indeed, to be constantly accused of bias or wishful thinking is itself offensive. It is apparent that the "seculars" tend to dislike religion and to cast secularity in positive terms. They may as well be accused of bias and wishful thinking, as well. As a believer, I personally don't care whether others (secular or other Christians, for that matter) think my beliefs are irrational. They are deeply-held, deeply personal, and a source of great comfort. I consider them a gift which no argument can sully.

To: Neocon who wrote (3690)	3/20/2002 1:34:18 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"I consider that the interminable case building against religion that used to be done by people like Solon, in the earlier life of the Boxing Ring, shows a decided animus" That is untrue. My inclination is to oppose the demonstrably silly, ridiculous, and harmful as it presents itself in the ugly texts of ancient tribes, and as it has presented itself in the death and degradation of so many innocent people. I also oppose the implied "moral" superiority which is often cloyingly dripped off the tongues of people whose words outrun their wisdom. I do not oppose soup kitchens; and your implication that their occurence, without the role of religion, would be merely "willy-nilly", or without choice or intention, is unfounded--and it shows a dreadful animus, I am much afraid...

To: Neocon who wrote (3690)	3/20/2002 2:46:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Thank you. The person coldly responded that someone at the gallows will grab hold of anything. I thought that crossed the line. It's not clear to me what principle is behind your concern here. Certainly the comment thoughtlessly portrayed your grandmother and disregarded your personal loss upon her death, but that's a question of general poor manners. The subject could have been anything, not necessarily religion. Unless you're suggesting that non-believers generally have poor manners, which I don't think your are. As for the matter of people often finding religion at the end of life, that, I think, is indisputable. (The Novak book I was yammering about over the weekend had an anecdote about Alexander Hamilton doing that.) Again, the style with which that was conveyed had an edge, but the point seems harmless enough. Is it the edge that you feel crossed the line? Can you zero in more on just what it was about that transaction that was over the line? I mean, how much can one flog the Crusades I'm sure that is way beyond tedious for you. It's even getting tedious for me, although I subscribe to the point. I agree with you that flogging the Crusades indicates animus toward the Church, and probably organized religion, in general, as well as making the point that decent behavior and religion don't correlate. I don't see why you find animus towards believers in that, though. Organized religion and personal belief are different things. Many religious people despise organize religion. I think that the Yates family is among them. I realize that things get all mushed together in these discussions, but I don't know that assuming animus toward believers is valid in that case. (to be continued)

To: Neocon who wrote (3690)	3/20/2002 3:39:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Somehow, religion is to blame for all the negative activities with which it may be associated, but the positive activities would occur willy- nilly, without religion playing a role. That is sheer axe grinding. You've used the terms "sheer axe grinding" and "animus" and "hatred." I recognize that these discussions can get shrill and even nasty. Is it mostly the tone with with the message is delivered rather than the message itself that crosses the line? I consider it strange and irritating of professed agnostics to portray believers as irrational. In the absence of certain knowledge, one is at liberty to opine, and belief in a deity is surely no more irrational than denial of a deity. I find myself looking "rational" up in the dictionary all the time. It never seems to mean what I expect it to, no matter how often I do that. When I think of rational, I think of logic and the scientific method. You can't get to a belief in God or a denial of God by the scientific method. The only rational attitude to have about God is to be an agnostic--it's an unknown. Belief is supra-rational. I don't think that saying that belief in God is irrational is an insult. It just is. We know what can be known. The rest we fill in with belief. Something less than rational, it is. Saying that we know what we only believe, now that's irrational. If by "irrational" one means nutty, yeah, there's an insult there. Let me ask you this. You are supportive of religion and the religious, in general. I assume that's the traditionalist, the social conservative in you. You have your own beliefs. Are there not any religious beliefs that you would consider nutty? That you'd have to be a bit daft or stupid to believe? I'm not talking about one's entitlement to believe whatever he or she wants regardless of now nutty, I'm talking about your assessment of the particular belief. Surely there must be something that is beyond the pale for you. If so, or if not, then I have further questions or points. They will protest that they have their reasons, but so what, believers have their reasons for preferring belief. It is an impasse. I can almost see you cringe when I suggest that believers may believe out of a need to believe and apply the word, needy, even though you've often said that there would be no meaning in life without God. I understand why you would consider "needy" a put down. I simply consider it an explanation. I said in a recent post that I do not have the temperament to be a believer, that I love freedom and detest arbitrary authority. One could draw from that that I am an overgrown spoiled brat, willful and childish. That's not complimentary, either. What's the difference between my preference for no God because I'm childish and the preference of others for a God because they have a childlike need for authority or a protector or meaning or eternal life? We're all human and we all explain things as they make sense to us. We may value our own attributes and look down a bit on those who do not share them. Sure there's bias in that. But animus? I'm done for now... Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (3690)	3/20/2002 4:26:59 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

person coldly responded that someone at the gallows will grab hold of anything. Is that the sort of thing you meant when you refer to spewing prejudice and contempt? Seems pretty mild compared to some other things I've seen. During the course of my time on SI I've been directly told that as an atheist I am incapable of personal morality. I've been told that my atheism renders me unfit for parenthood. Off SI, I've heard an American President respond favorably to the proposition that atheists ought to be denied citizenship. I've heard religious leaders hold atheists and others they dislike personally responsible for almost every bad thing that has happened in the US, including terrorist attacks. I was hoping you would come up with something in a similar league.