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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (54707)	8/16/2002 6:45:29 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, I think I have lost track now of when and where I suggested such a line needs to be drawn. It's implied in everything you say. It's implied by the fact that you elected to join this discussion since that's what the discussion is about. The Deist (without a particular religion) may infer such standards, which define "morality," by divining the purpose of life from observation of nature ... Why is it important to differentiate between a deist doing that and a humanist doing that? They seem like quite the same thing to me. We may be the near the point where we will just have to accept that our views, or perhaps it is our feelings on the matter, cannot be reconciled. At this point I'm not trying to reconcile, merely to understand why you find the difference to be singularly salient. Where I was intending to go with that, is that the humanist does not believe in any such divinely inspired guideposts. If there's a difference of opinion between the two perspectives on the morality of particular matters such as abortion or condoms, why would you prefer to frame that as religious vs. not rather than on the issues themselves? Because you think that the absolute authority of religion should rule and that debate among humans about what is best for humanity is irrelevant?