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: thames_sider who wrote (4155)	3/22/2002 9:02:46 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

I'll treat your 'Jew-hater' comment as simply blowing off steam That was my take on it. I think he was equating the perceived degree of contempt more so than the basis of the contempt. Occasional rants are healthy. They are rarely perfect in their phrasing. Even when they're Neo's. Karen

To: thames_sider who wrote (4155)	3/22/2002 9:19:06 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

If you're looking to score, may I suggest the Nudist's Arena? <GGG>

To: thames_sider who wrote (4155)	3/22/2002 9:31:24 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Actually, as your thoughtfulness is unexpected, and you introduce interesting complications, I think I will take a little time in responding to your post. Soon, probably, but not yet.......

To: thames_sider who wrote (4155)	3/22/2002 10:31:13 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

- superstitious? IMO, by definition. Actually, I'm not sure about that. I use that word just as you do. So, I looked it up. In a half dozen on-line dictionaries. I couldn't find one with my precise definition, which was a belief in the supernatural for which there was no sound basis. All the definitions found a way to skirt established religions in the way they framed their definitions. Most disconcerting. To be technically correct, I'd think that we'd have to say "superstition-like" or "tantamount to superstition" or some such. Assuming that's worth the bother in this informal a venue. Karen

To: thames_sider who wrote (4155)	3/22/2002 11:57:38 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

You have certainly been the most vituperative lately. I find the concession a point in your favor. As for specific points: There is a clear rule of thumb when judging the sociological impact of religion: be empirical. The relative validity of interpretations does not matter, from that standpoint. What matters is how the institution behaves, and how the congregants tend to behave and believe. Also, not how they are alleged to have behaved several centuries ago, but right now. Even when analyzing historically, one has to look for the characteristic, not the occasional, and to try to disentangle the use of religious symbols from religious motivation. Additionally, one must take into account the general level of civilization. Thus, the Spanish Inquisition was an anomaly; the Franciscans who rode with the Conquistadors protested the treatment of the Indians to the Pope, who tried to restrain the Spanish; and the Teutonic tribes that destroyed the Western Empire were probably improved by being Christianized, but not so much that their barbarity was wholly effaced. In the modern world, the mainstream of religion, institutional and personal, is not at all oppressive, but is a haven for those oppressed. As I have pointed out, most of the Holocaust rescuers were believing Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, and various churches have been champions of prisoners of conscience, not only those persecuted on religious grounds, but on political grounds as well. As for being superstitious, that is just a catty way of saying that people believe in the operation of spiritual forces in the world. Polarizing?: In the modern world, the attempt to bring ecumenical harmony and interfaith understanding has been pursued diligently by all of the major denominations and faiths. Additionally, they have often bridged the gap on other issues and attributes, like nationality and ethnicity. On the other side: Rational: I do not think that unbelief is more rational than belief. It is not less rational, though. I am glad that you appreciate that unbelief is not necessarily more humane than belief. The churches have put a lot of resources in humanitarian efforts, sometimes with a missionary purpose, sometimes not. But even those with a missionary purpose succor the non- believer, for how, if he is turned away, will he be converted? Heroic: good comments. Liberating: I suppose it depends on how personally oppressive one finds belief, or a particular set of beliefs. Of course, if one wishes sexual carte blanche, most religions are not helpful. On the other hand, if trust in God means that one is free of anxiety about the future, well, that is a liberation of a different sort. Or, again, if one is in a 12- step program, say Alcoholics Anonymous, and relies, as is required, on a higher power to help free one from addiction, one is more liberated in the end then if one had refused the spiritual dimension. (So far, 12- step programs have a better rate of success than most other treatments for dependency). Thanks for conceding bias. I think you are misled by a "Oxbridge" model of debate into thinking that attempts at wit can substitute for careful argument. That is the only way I can construe the comparative enlightenment of the post I am responding to with your usual argumentative style. Thanks for keeping your head over the Jew- hater comment. I suppose it was overly- provocative, but my theme was the bias and contempt that I seemed to see underlying various forms of argument, making them seem similar to the kinds of responses I was dealing with from the EVIL ONE. I think it shows a level head to appreciate that sometimes things come to a boil, and a rant clears the air, more or less.......