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: Lane3 who wrote (77915)	10/20/2003 3:08:03 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I use the term atheist in what I think is its most commonly accepted meaning, as one who is active in disbelief. Presumably there is a form of noncombative atheism (just as there is a form of nonviolent and nonconfrontational Islam), but I don't think the term is normally used that way, and a quick run through Google shows that the top ranked (by Google) web sites dealing with atheism have a distinctily edgy feel and see an active conflict between atheism and deism.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77915)	10/20/2003 8:29:59 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

aetheronline.com Remember religion and the brain? I think religious folks and non-religious folks can come up with horrible and very nice systems. The key factor in the pleasantness of any system, at least for those on the fringes, is how the "other" is treated. As we see every day, religious folks (like those Wahhabis) can be quite the intolerant fellows- and of course atheistic communists can be too. Buddhists, on the other hand, don't seem to be too dangerous, and as I keep saying, agnostics never seem to persecute anyone either. It's all very silly trying to find the ideal bad guys- because all you're doing with that pursuit is trying to stake out the territory of the "other". All humans are prone to evil when they buy into regimented and coercive systems- it's the systems that are problematic, not necessarily the beliefs that drive the systems. It we could take the "beleif" out of the problem, and discuss what we don't like about the systems, most people could be more rational about the whole thing. No one wants to admit their belief has problems, but most people are willing to attack, or at least examine, a structural problem. JMO as a member of no group