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: Solon who wrote (16222)	2/5/2004 10:40:31 PM
From: Scott Bergquist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

And what about Mithra? His festivals competed with Christian festivals in the time of (Saint to be ) Augustine? He was crucified, and rose from the dead. So proclaimed many many witnesses. All 500 years (!) before Jesus' time. They even had blood self-flagellation ceremonies, much like the Shiites! At first, Augustine deferred on his mother's wishes that he become a Christian. He observed both the festivals of Mithra and Christian holy days then competing in Rome, and declared the Christian religion much the lesser.

To: Solon who wrote (16222)	2/6/2004 1:33:42 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

"No, it is "reasonable" unlike the irrational "Man"." <<>What is your problem with that?>> As I said you seem incapable of conceding even the smallest point even though it was quite clearly made. Diaz is engaging in a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. That's a fact. Get over it. "Nobody has ever accused science of being "desperate" in her search. What has science to be "desperate" about? Most scientists would probably love to find evidence of a prolonged life through a God or two." I am a somebody and I have accused science of desperation, so you are wrong aren't you? People like yourself are so desperate to deny the moral claims that God has on their behavior that they have a vested interest in the outcome of "scientific inquiries". "It is not necessarily free of motives" Well hush my mouth! That's not the way that Diaz put it. In fact he painted one side as "motivated" and his side of being "free" to follow the evidence. If it's fair to bring up motives on one side then it's also fair to point them out for the other side as well. "Science" may claim that it is a neutral system of inquiry but science is done by humans who have motives. Failing to recognize this is not only arrogant, it is stupid. "...what is your problem with following evidence rather than forever refereeing the fantastic followers of Jesus or Zeus or Allah or El?" More apples and oranges. I know it suits your needs to mix historical and non-historical truth claims together because you are so desperate for escape the ramifications if they are true. Why not just be honest about it? There is plenty of historical evidence for actual existence of Jesus, His death by crucifixion and His resurrection, while there is none for Zeus. I don't have the least bit of problem following the "evidence". The evidence leads to the foot of the cross, to the stone rolled away from an empty tomb and ultimately to the one who said; "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."