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 (18779)	11/30/2004 4:17:10 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person. Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay. nobeliefs.com

To: Greg or e who wrote (18779)	12/1/2004 2:46:08 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

"it simply challenges a point" Crap. It totally evaded my point and simply suggested I believed Bush was behind 9-11. A stupid evasive insult is not a challenge. "it is equally clear that Jesus life was not about eking happiness" The mythological Jesus was so controlled by appetite that he freaked out when he couldn't gorge on figs after his walk. Or when He stole the colt to ride into the village while his disciples walked and spread their clothes in front for his comfort and happiness! "What is the basis for those ethics that transcend societal laws?" Why do I need to repeat the same explanations to you over and over again? Once again: human ethics are rooted in the body and the mind. It is NATURAL for people to desire happiness and safety, and to avoid suffering and risk. It is RATIONAL for thinking creatures to discover and to choose what best serves these values in a social setting. It is REALITY that cooperation and protection of personal property (your body/LIFE…and what you require for life) best meet the serving of this inherent will to survive and to avoid suffering. I will make an analogy: It is natural that a man dying of thirst in the desert should desire to get to the water a mile away which he knows will alleviate his suffering and will preserve his life. It is RATIONAL that he walk straight toward the water rather than wander in circles. Likewise, in human society--reality may be understood by thinking minds and obeyed; just as it may be ignored by knaves and fools. That people should cooperate and live in peace and safety does not require any superstitious justification--no more than does the belief that one should not eat feces. On the other hand, you believe that ethics are codified in ONE of THOUSANDS of competing superstitions. Therefore, your ethics must of necessity be divisive. Your “ethics” MUST lead to the continued suffering of humanity as it divides itself along superstitious lines, and refuses to embrace the commonality of reason as the basis for treating one another with fairness and decency. Adding to that is the worrisome fact that your “ethics” are based on the “ethics” of pre-rational humanity…when the major ethic was racism and tribal survival--and where the life of all other humanity was of no more value than dead rats (excepting, of course, young virgins). The lowest point of your “ethical” system is the primary ethic that all people ought to worship and grovel before ONE God (YOURS)…and that God divides people into good people and bad people on the basis of whether or not they follow His commandment to worship only Him. Almost every other superstitious group holding this as their primary ethic, we thus have the recipe for endless strife and inhumanity--and the ultimate failure of people to find peace and freedom and happiness in the common ground of reason. Now the reason, Greg or e, why it is ethical for people to be criminals in their society from time to time and place to place is BECAUSE their society is basing their “ethics” on some superstition or delusion which flies in the face of rational ethics. When ideologues create religious or ideological social systems based on superstition or “visions” or simple minded dogma, and where such irrationality threatens life and safety--then it is rationally ethical to oppose such systems. It is not necessary, greg or e, that I justify my ethical right to be safe and free by appealing to some superstition or vision I have had or that I believe in (the method by which YOU justify YOUR “ethical” beliefs). My right to be safe and free is justified by my own life. It is what I want. And it is what all rational people want. Reason shows me that the best way to be happy and to avoid strife is to share, cooperate, assist, respect, and to value the rights and freedoms of all people. Because my own rights and freedoms cannot be justified unless I admit to some common ground with other creatures of my biological makeup--and unless I acknowledge that reason is a sound guide to crossing the desert.

To: Greg or e who wrote (18779)	12/1/2004 1:06:40 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Your argument suffers from the Naturalistic fallacy." You don’t understand the meaning of naturalistic fallacy. Suffice it to say, that it can not be argued except in the face of an agreed acceptance of Absolute terms (such as “goodness”, “ought”, “virtuous”, etc.). I generally use the word “value” in order to make it clear that the “ought” is strictly relative and based on opinion and point of view and that no attempt is being made to equate it with anything ultimate. As an example, I recognize that pain can be pleasurable for some people in certain circumstances. Language , nor even reason, can pin down the intricacies of a human being and fix his nature in one single spot like a preserved butterfly. The key point is that opinion may be either reasonable or unreasonable--and that it may be tested in the proving ground of life. It may be refined by experiment, and it may be enriched by sharing.