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: IntelliCents who wrote (2252)	10/22/2000 7:04:40 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

Yes, I do believe it at "The Truth," because to me, it's the only truth. I'm curious: why do you believe it? What convinced you? At least you seem to acknowledge that while to you the bible may be the only truth, others may find no truth in it at all. If one refuses to believe in what the Bible says, or even accept the Bible as some sort of Inspirational writing from "A" God, any God, then trying to explain ones faith becomes a challenge. I'm sure those who base their faith on the Torah, the Koran, or some other scripture, or on no scripture at all, would disagree. What is important is that all members of all faiths must acknowledge that all faiths are purely a matter of faith, and that we have no way of knowing which faith and which scripture, if any, actually does represent the word of God, assuming that there is a God. This the root of tolerance, and this is why Church and State must be separated: there are many churches, and none has an inherent claim to validity that is any stronger than any other religion.

To: IntelliCents who wrote (2252)	10/22/2000 7:21:24 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

It isn't an attack of Christianity, IMO, but rather a questioning of the dogma that so many are tied to. My roots are non-denominational. My parents took me to Unitarian and Presbyterian churches. They let me go with a neighbor boy to Catholic catechism. It was fun - we drew pictures of stars. I love stars still. At ten years old, I realized that God as others believed wasn't my vision of God. I have always had an animist view of the World. This means that there appears a motivational force behind people, things and the universe. I don't know how deeply this exists, but it seems to be true, IMO. Again, I feel no threat from Christianity because if we end up going to first principles, I point out that they put something else, external to them (the Bible), in authority. I put me in authority. These are mutually exclusive and incompatible orientations, IMO. I tend to minimize the relative dangers of Christianity. I think that, while it is not a philosophy that I adhere to, depending upon the part of its primary document to which I refer, there are considerable parts which appear to have contradictory or dissonant philosophical principles for me. Despite this, my personal experience is that many people consider Christianity a social and service organization and it works for them. That despite the barbaric parts of the religion, many good things can and do come from some of its adherents. I do feel a concern over the relative strength which adherents seem to believe. The Middle Eastern religions (and I group Christianity with these) in general don't have a good record if you look at history. The strength of belief seems to allow a suspension of moral principles in deference to some absolute set of principles that are unprovable but, more importantly allow unlimited physical and philosophical opposition to others beliefs. I feel no threat to my belief because it is based upon experience and facts and only one principle - more can be gained by logic than belief. If I get new facts, I would change my belief. A compelling argument might also sway me, but requires a dwell time to allow me to assess its effects on my existing data. I've changed my opinion more than most people because I don't have a rigid view of the world. The main obstacle that adherents would have in an argument with me would be asserting some things are universally true for everyone when I think no such universals exist. I have travelled and known many people. And I can tell you that people believe all sorts of things and most won't question them. But that's okay with me. If someone wants to believe in Santa, and Santa brings them gifts, it really doesn't matter that Santa is just a way for your parents to find out what you want. You are happy. I'm happy. My aversion, it would seem, stems from my unwillingness to have others' Santas imposed upon me. I don't need or want their Santa yet they feel the need to demonstrate its truth. This ultimately fails, because I can demonstrate that even my belief is ultimately unprovable and so is theirs. So we need to each have our own philosophy, yet not impose it on others. But, if someone wants to discuss it, that is entirely reasonable. Greg McRitchie is a Fundamentalist who hangs out here. I disagree with him on most philosophical and ontological beliefs yet, he asks me repeatedly how I view the various things he brings up. His goal may be to affirm his religion, or undermine my philosophy, but that doesn't matter to me. An honest question is an honest question. If I can't answer it, it may help uncover an area of truth or part of my model that needs more thought.