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 (16923)	4/2/2004 12:16:58 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

"You have an incredible grasp of the obvious!" Doesn't anything penetrate through the fog, Greg? I named atheism and humanism followed by several religious ideologies and then correctly said that you came to the thread to dismiss them as "less worthy" and "less Godly". In other words, Greg...you believed that "Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all non-Christian paths" were less Godly than your superstition. Maybe you just need to try a little harder. I am convinced you have the capacity to figure this one out if you give it 100%. "Your just living on borrowed notions of morality. I thought you were a free thinker?" Your statement is meaningless nonsense, so I will simply explain to you that the contraction for "you are" is "you're", NOT "your". You don't walk around with snot on your chin (I presume), so don't leave snot on your words. "Yes I did and do" Well, it appears that you as as ignorant and as witless as you are rude. "The first part of the statement is what you started with and now that you have been shown as a liar and a fraud, you want to change the basic thrust of your argument by adding extra qualifiers;" You are incredibly dense, ill-bred, and disrespectful. You are also an outright liar. Post after post you make these ad hominem attacks and avoid honest discussion. Most people would brush you aside and simply ignore you. But I will not ignore you. "Arguing from authority is only invalid when the authorities you quote don't have any expertise in the specific area in question." As you recall, I asked you to justify your "argument from authority" by giving evidence from your witless wonder, the Lutheran Chaplain. As expected, you squirmed and crawled and pleaded ignorance of his "books"--where his real evidence apparently was and apparently is! :-) "You did banish me from another thread the very first chance you had" I banished you from another thread for a few hours as a penalty for breaking thread rules. I then re-instated you. If you break the rules of a moderated thread you get moderated. Surely this is not beyond your grasp, is it?