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 (22662)	10/12/2005 1:41:35 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<Right or wrong, it bears little on the question...> As you say it depends on what is an 'aethist' about. <<If you define God as the sun but having NO omnipotence, omniscience, life, mind, etc. ... I am sure that every atheist would gladly accept the existence of a "God" so defined.> But if one defines 'god' as the unified field... which happens to have a conciousness.... then it fits the above. My point was that if it were describable... that might come close for me... and I might be agnostic, but to say I was atheist would just be talking through my hat, since I have no idea. <"There is no need to examine, critique, etc. If god is omnipresent, omniscient, etc etc as all the mystics from all the major religions describe" Why would you assert such a silly statement?> Because IF what the mystics describe is even remotely true... why would I critique, discuss, etc without even having consulted them??? Why wouldn't I just say, geee, I don't know, I havent ever read these guys things, let along listen to them or having spoke to them? <It does not need to know air to describe water.> The point is that you need to have a comparison... if everything we percieved was blue, there would be no need to label anything 'blue'. If we are swimming in a sea of conciousness and the entire universe is actually one being {as described by the mystics} why do you think you'd have a clue about it? <So humankind describes reality with integrity knowing it is imperfectly comprehended.> Based on it's viewpoint. DAK