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 (1625)	10/12/2000 12:40:36 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I look at nature and I see that it also appears to also be made by someone who is PERSONAL, POWERFUL, LOGICAL, and MORAL Wow! That's totally not what I see. I see IMPERSONAL, POWERFUL, LOGICAL, and AMORAL. AMORAL is not IMMORAL, mind you. Nature has its own rules. It doesn't care about us per se or what we think as individuals. That doesn't mean we aren't part of it. We are just a part of it that thinks it is more important than it is. We have a place, but that's it. A place. As far as morals go, a parasitic wasp that lays its eggs in other creatures so that they are eaten from the inside out is not a MORAL act. It is an act of survival. It is logical. It is powerful. It is impersonal. A resource is available and a mechanism exists for exploiting it. The notions of fair, unfair, right, wrong, good and bad are abstract quantities that generally don't have a manifestation in nature, unless there is a reason. There are gradients in all things. There appears to be no absolutes. Do you think that plants "like" to be eaten? I don't. But, you know what? They deal with it and make the best of their situation. They provide sacrificial offerings of themselves to benefit as much as possible from the inevitable. The berry says, "Here is this delicious berry. Eat it. Don't chew it too much because my seed is inside and it will stick in between your teeth. I will give you this treat so that I may continue myself in the fertilizer you leave behind you." That's about it. That's what berries "think". The berry doesn't care about you. You are just one possible mechanism. If you ever study parasitology you will see that some of the intermediate vectors are not obvious at all, but nonetheless are LOGICAL. Parasites don't want to know you. They don't care what you think. The don't ask if it is right or wrong. Frequently, parasites become commensalists, or sometimes even beneficial, because YOU doing well means THEY do well. Kind of like your relationship to the CEO of your favorite company!! So Greg, it is back to school for you because out the 4 you postulated you only got 2 right. Moral and Personal don't make the list. Powerful and Logical certainly do.

To: Greg or e who wrote (1625)	10/12/2000 2:20:14 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

Are you arguing for the possibility of a God, or for the possibility of one of those Chosen People guys in one of humankind's Chosen People bibles? Such a huge difference, you know. Arguing ideas about Ultimate Being is not anathema to most of the scientific/philosophical community. Conversely, arguing the existence of Jehovah would only appeal to a narrow range of people, and probably only in the context of alien visitations--evidence for and against...

To: Greg or e who wrote (1625)	10/12/2000 6:46:32 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I look at nature and I see that it also appears to also be made by someone who is PERSONAL, POWERFUL, LOGICAL, and MORAL. Interesting that I look at the same picture and see no evidence whatsoever of such design. What exactly do you see that convinces you of this? At the end of all that if you flip the thing over you will discover that it has been signed by the Artist (formerly known as God). That would be the Bible. But the Bible was not signed by God. It was signed by human beings who claimed to have been inspired by God. If you choose to believe that claim, that is your right, but that choice is an act of faith, not reason. I do not see morality as evidence of the existence of God. To me it is simply evidence that humans, being pack animals, have always found it expedient to adopt rules governing behaviour within the pack. The rules have survived because they work, which is a very good reason to observe them. I shall endeavour to have a nice day, because all available empirical evidence suggests that nice days are more fun and productive than the other kind....

To: Greg or e who wrote (1625)	10/13/2000 7:14:31 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

ROFL the argument for God by design It's been demolished in many arguments. Not worth repeating all of them. You can call us watches, or you can call us pots, but if you look for someone who made everything, (since you think things need to be made by something) than WHO made God? Hehehe and what about the fact that morality differs quite a lot, as do the God(s)? hmmmmm? (I know- God doesn't need a maker because. Because he's God. Oooh that's convincing. And your morality is right and everyone else is wrong. So that takes care of that. Not.)