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: briskit who wrote (16566)	3/5/2004 11:32:40 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"I doubt that argument withstands careful scrutiny. That was my point of being in this conversation. You are using an argument to discredit the texts which I do not believe will survive careful examination" I believe it has. It is the texts which do not survive credible examination. "But the basis of the texts, while not found in Josephus, is certainly not adapted from Mithra, et. al" That misstates my position. I need to cover my inbox and get out of here, so please find the time to read this if you wish a decent summary of my position. positiveatheism.org positiveatheism.org positiveatheism.org THAT is my position or a great part of it. Unfortunately, in bulletin board dashing of one-liners and short paragraphs and out of context singularities, one can mistake the position of another or so characterize it as to render it unintelligible. My position is that Christianity is not unlike all the other Movements and Structures representative of man's search for supernatural aid and Man's unscrupulous tendency to offer it--at a price. My position on the larger questions of existence is much like Spinoza, although I do not think existence can truly be given a concrete structure or common Truth. What I see absolutely NO REASON for is to choose between brutal and foolish and superstitious stories and myths, and to pretend that one is much better or worse than the other--certainly not to prostrate my humanity before such depraved and inhuman sentiments as Hell or the slaying of 40 children in a violent way for calling someone, "baldy"; and certainly not to "analyze" talking donkeys, and snakes, and arks full of cows and ostriches riding above mountain tops. There are still billions of minds for the Church to exercise Power and Will over: Minds to sit late at night reading tortuous "proofs" of Adam, Eve, and Noah. Well, I am rushing and becoming scattered here. Just as an aside before running: The Noah myths trickled down from the myths of Gilgamesh at least as far back as 3300 BC. It is an obvious myth to any Christian (when in Gilgamesh) and it accompanies other "obvious" myths to any Christian (in Gilgamesh). But when it is scrapped together over centuries and collated with other "suitable" papyri by the Church Fathers then it suddenly becomes the inspired words of Moses--even though it corresponds even in the details to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Oh, it is just so crazy and ludicrous: eating dung, feeding dung, flinging dung--dung, dung, dung.