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: Poet who wrote (7503)	4/6/2002 6:39:31 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I will try to clarify: I don't claim that such an opinion is necessary as a preconception against the secularist. I mean only that, if there is to be a retaliation (rather than merely a defense) against a secularist position, as regards ones belief...then that retaliation is rather limited as to the form which it may take. The most defining characteristic of an atheist is the rather bare fact that he or she does not believe in God. The major religions of the world have a fairly united consensus of what that makes him, as well as what that makes those of other faiths. Those who do not subscribe to a pejorative opinion against non believers, strictly on the basis of their non belief, are left to retaliate against their personal character..."IF" they are to retaliate at all. I make no presumption that either "side" will either "attack" or "retaliate"...only that the atheist does not need to "defend" his disbelief with tomes of material and commentary which may be turned against him; but rather--his disbelief is based on REJECTION of the textual supports of others. Thus, those who wish to retaliate against him must anchor their criticism in something other than texts and dogma. Again, believers and non believers are not presumed to be either more or less capable of either aggressive or of forgiving responses. Either may turn the other cheek, as it were. It is just that one group is defending doctrines which concern a belief in another world while one group has no such doctrines to defend.