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: jcky who wrote (7419)	4/6/2002 11:20:52 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I don't think the goal is to strip people but more to take one belief off and look at it they can put it back on later, or move some other ones around to cover the bare spot we never examine all beliefs at once we take a few at a time but you are right if we care we will learn who not to push, and of course, those who do not care to be sensitive, have every right not to learn that

To: jcky who wrote (7419)	4/6/2002 3:29:37 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Now this is interesting: But it is inevitable that when certain beliefs and ideas are challenged, some people will take this as a personal affront. I think the key is to recognize who these people are and to back away when they feel threatened. Give them a bit of breathing room. Of course, some of the best discussions occur when views are challenged and pushed to the edge of the bubble. You'll just have to know the limits of your cohorts thru continual debate. Is it possible that one could disagree strongly with a statement and not be personally offended? And is it is somehow wrong, intellectually immature, or embarrassing to have "cherished beliefs" as you call them?

To: jcky who wrote (7419)	4/6/2002 3:54:00 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 21057

Religious persuasions generally have a huge reservoir of textual dogma which may be criticized by non believers. Conversely, there is little which may be critized in an atheist or secular humanist OTHER THAN their non-belief. Therefore, the secularist gets the (perhaps unfair) advantage in having a target of almost unlimited size to criticize, whereas the "believer", when he is not defending--generally is able to attack only the person or the character of his opponent. Of course, the secularist may attack either, and sometimes does. But it is an interesting dynamic. The basic criticism against the non believer (regardless of how moral or exalted is his/her character and values) ultimately must come down to the fact that he is an "infidel" and "Godless"...and, of course "blasphemous"...for not sharing the particular religious belief of the person he is talking to.