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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (58646)	8/16/1999 3:26:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

OK Johannes. Let's see if we can make some sense out of your assumptions: <<That which runs contrary to our notions of civilisation is barbaric.>> Who's notions? There are many notions about civilization that represent all perspectives. <<But it does hold truer to our daily assumptions on civilised life than your "self-evidence.>> Again, who's assumptions on civilized life?>> You haven't heard pezz's tape on responsibility free relationships and the beautiful Earth tapestry? <<Secondly, my alleged temporality, presents evidence of only my alleged temporality, as there very well may exist a limitless Person.>> If there is a being that does not need to breath, eat, drink, sleep,in this world, I would not label them as a person. Humans by definition have these limitations and many more. You say such a person may very well exist. I say you have lost touch with your mental faculties. <<I think life here is just one great big assumption.>> hmmm?.assumptions have a basis. Most people base their assumptions on something. You want to trust the contrivances of civilizations? I know you are well read but it intrigues me how you would put your complete faith behind the assumptions of a civilization that you just happen to have popped into forty or fifty years ago. <<You bring up all this towel-headed religion and hocus pocus stuff and call it evidence.>> I wear nothing on my head unless I am going out in very hot sun. I live in Colorado. When I need a hat, I wear a hat. I have not brought up any thing having to do with mysticism or magic, nor do I believe in such things. I have no clue what you are talking about. Although, it seems obvious enough that you are intimidated by reference to a religion that you don?t understand. Your argument would be stronger if you were to avoid expressions of ignorance and bigotry. <<I have read your crap more times than I care to remember, and I would definitely not put my dang life on it.>> If you mean the things I have written on this thread fail to present a clear purpose for ones course in life, then of course you should not put your life on it. If you mean you have undertaken a scholarly review of Islam, then I can understand why you refer to your condition as my "dang" life. On what have you based your assumption that your life is "danged?" <<I'll take it over them dang goofy "messengers" any day>> Well it?s your assumption that Abraham, Noah, Jacob, Jesus, and many, many others are goofy. My evidence was to their lives of honesty and virtue and their unanimous consensus to the existence of God and to the ability of human beings to confirm this within themselves. I think of these messengers as above reproach, you judged them goofy and have damned them. <<You say all this mumbo jumbo as if I can put it under a microscope.>> What I have said can be put under a microscope and has been by thousands of scholars for thousands of years. <<I believe folk are naturally built such that they really cannot see the truth (though deep down they perceive it and know they do), even though it is right in front of them.>> OK so this almost sounds like your testifying for the existence of self evident truth. Yup, brees