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 (9507)	1/17/2002 8:16:21 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

" My answer was clearly conditioned on Joshua's acting on a direct command from God. I don't know that the people killed were innocent and neither do you. An all knowing and just God does. " Joshua's genocide is clearly conditioned ( in your mind) on his receiving orders from such an all~knowing just God-of-vengence ? So everything is conditional with you Greg ? You have heard of Pavlov's experiments ? arf arf , bow wow ! The world salivates at your every thought McRitchie , when one manages to dribble down your chin...Is delusion a conditioned reflex ? Take your time ...maybe wait for orders from your Dog-God before answering . <g>

To: Greg or e who wrote (9507)	1/17/2002 8:21:18 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Respond to of 28931

>>it does not seem quite fair to use a theory that assumes the non existence of God, to prove the non existence of God. Specifically concerning morality, which is after all what we are discussing. Is it fair to use a theory that is only true if no standard outside of the physical universe exists to prove that no ultimate standard outside of the physical universe exists? Is the use of circular reasoning only out of bounds for Theists?<< I never claimed to be proving the non-existence of God. Rather, I was refuting the necessity of a God to explain (the imagined reality of) absolute morality. I was also refuting that an absolute standard for morality was necessary to have a meaningful discussion about right and wrong. In addition, I'm not sure why you just spent so many electrons on a refutation of Einstein when I never mentioned him. My argument does not rest on the truth of any of Einstein's theories, but rather upon the observation that we can meaningfully talk about speed within one relativistic system (the Earth) without it necessarily being an absolute system. We know that the Earth's motion is not absolute, yet a discussion of speed on the surface of the Earth is meaningful to all those on the Earth (but not between people on different planets). Likewise, a meaningful discussion of Joshua's morals could be shared by you with all those who share your theological assumptions (but not with those who don't). Luckily, since we are all human, share a common ancestry and share a similar environment, most people can use this common system to have meaningful discussions of morality. >>I don't know that the people killed were innocent and neither do you.<< Do you not believe the city contained babies? Or do you not believe that babies are innocent?

To: Greg or e who wrote (9507)	1/17/2002 8:42:20 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

>>If God had done for them, what he had done for Joshua and the nation of Israel( the spectacular and clearly miraculous deliverance from the Egyptians, accompanied by a physical manifestation that lasted more than forty years. A pillar of smoke in the day and a column of fire at night. Springs of water from the rocks and Manna for food every morning) then, and only then could such a comparison be made. Jones was a false prophet with a messianic complex, and OBL is an evil coward in a cave. But you are right that is getting off topic.<< A new thread for the off-topic... :-) Do you think that people should refrain from believing something is "from God" until they see something clearly miraculous? I know many people who believe that God speaks to them, but there are no external miracles such as firey pillars and locust plagues. Should such people only partially obey God until He delivers the goods in terms of miracles? Coming from another side... Do you think that witnessing miraculous events should convince a person that the events are "from God"? Should I obey David Copperfield as God's mouthpiece? He made the statue of liberty disappear. I saw it with my own eyes. Then, he made it come back! Remember that Pharoah's court magicians could do tricks, but I don't think you would endorse that it is morally acceptable to kill at their command. I am having trouble seeing on what basis you place your endorsement of Joshua's murders.

To: Greg or e who wrote (9507)	1/17/2002 10:34:23 PM
From: rockerbanger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

hey greg, back in them days the writers didn't know much about tidal waves or geology so when they heard of fires and smoke shooting out of mountains and tidal areas going dry then a big wave hiting they though it was supernatral and used this dramatic stuff in their stories.let's face it these scribes were great story tellers, only proplem someone came up with the idea that we should believe them or be damed, and an awefull lot did just that, in cludeing yourself, which is your perogitive i guess.