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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1511)	10/10/2000 5:22:08 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Most of his arguments are clearly emotive, rather than dealing with the issues of truth Greg, Greg, Greg! I have emotions. Arguments do not. And this ad hominen stuff only argues for a paucity of ideas... Now, I have said this over and over and over--and I will say it again: I judge people by their behaviour, by their values. I have nothing against Christians, Atheists, Buddhists...or anyone else. What I have discussed with you (and others) is the Institution and belief systems of various Christian sects--including the minority Christian viewpoint of biblical inerrancy, which you have (poorly) defended here. Whether or not the incredible evil committed directly by the church speaks to the belief system, or to the criminals, is an important issue for each individual to address with heart and mind. I would suggest that many of these millions killed in the name of Christianity, would not have been tortured and murdered without the sanction and justification of the bible. If we are to ignore historical fact, then what is the point of discussing the issues at all? Indeed, what is the point of professing to seek Truth, if you are already convinced that the only Truth is Jesus, and all other paths are false? When I synthesize your "Ask God" posts with your posts here...I do not see an openness to incorporate ideas that might put your fundamental dogma at risk. You clearly have a mission to defend your beliefs--not only against the viewpoints of others--but against the cold hard facts of life and logic...and against your own relentless doubts. As regards a cohesive philosophy of life: It has nothing to do with Theism. There have been (and are) innumerable cohesive philosophies of life. Now, tell me: Are you now giving notice that you wish to argue theism versus atheism? or are you still arguing Christianity versus everything else??

To: Greg or e who wrote (1511)	10/10/2000 6:09:27 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 28931

Chrisitanity is probably not true, because it's so very silly. Like all other myths it comes from primitive times and primitive people. So many myths, so many people who are so sure they are right. All these lead a thinking person to believe NONE are right. God makes a man, puts him in a garden, takes a rib and makes him a woman, gives them a tree but tells them not to eat from it...they do, what a surprise. God throws them out of the garden and curses them. Much killing, mayhem and bloodshed follows. Much later God impregnates a "virgin" yet MARRIED woman. This son is later killed by Romans- and by being killed saves only people who "believe" in this whole story, or the parts thereof whatever church they belong to says they have to believe. Uh huh

To: Greg or e who wrote (1511)	10/10/2000 6:41:18 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I suspect that part of the reason that you and Solon are not on the same page is that you are discussing entirely unrelated phenomena. Solon's posts refer to the activities of organized religions; yours to the existence of God. I see no connection whatsoever between the two. I am quite willing to discuss religion: such discussion is based on observed behaviour and can be conducted with a modest degree of empirical certainty. Discussing the existence of God seems to me a waste of time: since no empirical proof exists in either direction, the discussion can only go around in circles. Some choose to believe, others choose not to believe. As long as neither imposes their choice on others, I've no problem with either. I will say that if you honestly believe that it is impossible to build a cohesive philosophy of life from a Godless material existence, you have perhaps not tried hard enough. I grant that it is more challenging than buying into a pre-packaged religion, but the challenge is often well rewarded. Try it sometime.