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: epicure who wrote (9444)	1/16/2002 2:41:09 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

You will have to ask questions more directly as it is difficult to sort out your questions, from your ranting. Ask away

To: epicure who wrote (9444)	1/16/2002 2:53:15 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I'm still looking for the question in this spew, how about pointing it out? "You are admitting to an assumption. Fine. I am ROFL that you have the nerve to attack my reasoning. Of course it is possible you merely do not understand it. You don't understand quantum physics either, and you are willing to throw that out because of YOUR ignorance. Which is really quite funny. I have adequate explanations for everything I argue, and I am fully aware of the propositions inherent in my arguments- where you are sadly unaware. You, wedded to your own world view, and blinded by the propositions you assume, cannot see any other view. IF what you assumed were true, than some of your argument might follow. Problem is you have no "proof" for your assumptions that anyone who doesn't believe the way you believe would accept. You have an argument based on the bedrock of your belief, and you do not seem to be able to comprehend that. You believe God is not an effect because what you believe in tells you God is not an effect. My goodness- that IS compelling, not. Perhaps you cannot see that at all. Or perhaps you get snippy because you can see it. I've no way to know. "He explicitly claims not to be" more assumptions; you believe in the word of some He God (or should I say alleged words of some He God)- which you are quite free to believe but you have no real "proof" beyond faith. You further assume this He God to provide an actual and logically necessary explanation to the universe (without offering a compelling reason why, save for another of your- because I believe it it follows, arguments) and proclaim that he also provides a basis for absolute morality but you show no reason that is logical why this should be so, unless one accepts all your propositions, which you accept because of faith. I am ROFL. These are PRONOUNCEMENTS, not arguments. Congratulations on assuming you have explained something when you have merely assumed you are right based on your assumed propositions. Again, you may not understand this, but philosophers do, and have already grappled with it. Your argument lost the philosophical wars a long long time ago. So let's say this about you: You, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, have adequate explanation for nothing that is not based entirely upon belief."