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 (16796)	3/26/2004 1:45:37 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

For some reason I am unable to respond to posts addressed to me. In the meantime I will use this awkward method. "You said "Christianity is no more "historical" than any other religion." I said: "That is an ignorant statement." I'm not trying to be rude or hurt your feelings, I'm just stating a fact. (You are not hurting my feelings-LOL! Don't be bizarre! You ARE being ignorant and rude and dismissive of ALL other religions...ALL of which have the same or more "historical" claims as Christianity. Also, as you know (or ought to know), we have been using "historical "claim"" to refer to evidentiary value...not to the FACT that primitives or lunatics assert such and such or so and so. It is of no value to our discussion, that primitive religions (as well as most in the last century of "modern" times), prima facie assert nonsensical, absurd, and risible "events". We are not concerned with the historical fact of the Hale-Bopp beliefs. WE question whether the beliefs were sensible or nonsensical. Likewise with Christian ideas adopted from previous mythologies." How can you blame me when you persist in equating Christianity (that claims historical veracity) with mythological religions which clearly do not? "They all claim "historical veracity". Indeed (as has been repeatedly shown), Christianity is a collation and re-invention of myths and beliefs which go back to the dawn of homo sapiens when humans grunted and pointed. The ark story, the virgin birth, the resurrection, absurd miracles--these are all tired and commonplace." The rest of your post is as bizarre as it is baseless. It completely misrepresents my position. Are you practicing your creative writing? "If your position is "misrepresented" it is something you must own. If "historical claim" is the simple (and rather meaningless) evaluation of whether or not a "claim" occurred (as you seemed to suggest in a post to either Scott or Mars), then your "arguments" are as silly as your accusations. Nobody was doubting that Christians make certain claims, or that primitive and superstitious writers made certain "claims"...we were questioning rather those claims have any truth value as being representative of a reality that may be scientifically attested to. And no...it has been many years since I took any "courses". I was merely mocking your arrogant dismissal of other religions."

To: Greg or e who wrote (16796)	3/26/2004 2:05:19 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"It seems that simply changing the subject is somehow seen by you as a glorious victory. It is not. We have been discussing the historical reality that Christianity is based on. Specifically, the very modest claim that.. "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."(Craig) If you would like to admit your error and move on to something else, I would be happy to." There have been thousands of "wonder workers" alleged in "history". Only a very unscientific and irrational "historian" considers primitive tales of talking donkeys, languages originating from instant acts of God, and such other absurdities which contradict science, as having any truth value..in spite of the fact that such "claims" predate Christianity by many centuries. There are many bizarre and risible "claims" which exist in "history". There is no good reason to elevate absurdity to levels of serious contemplation. That you could selectively believe the nonsense you claim to believe while being dismissive of religious nonsense from other primitive sources (and while yet having the gall to pretend a rational seriousness)--well...really...how am I to take you seriously?? And you want ME to admit MY error (sic) because (in effect) I refuse to believe that one talking donkey or one resurrection is any more credible than another?! You had better change the glazing on those pots!...LOL!