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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (20300)	4/14/1998 12:13:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

X, The definition of an Atheist is simply one who does not believe in a god or gods, nothing more or less. I doubt if a baby believes in god from the moment it is born. It is not irrational not to believe in mythology. I prefer to call myself a believer in the scientific method, which is very rational. I don't care to waste my time believing in talking snakes, floods that cover the world, people living in whales, and other Bible nonsense. The belief in these things is what I consider irrational. Del

To: epicure who wrote (20300)	4/14/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<Being an agnostic is unnatural, which appeals to me.> I am not sure I understand what you mean, there, X!!! I have a very healthy rebellious streak, however, so I can certainly appreciate at least one meaning of your comment. Has anyone read the very most current issue of Time? It has a cover story on the shroud of Turin. Even though it was scientifically proven by radio-carbon dating to be made of linen from the Middle Ages in 1988, based on samples sent to three laboratories which all came back with the same results, I am not really quite sure whether I am convinced that the Shroud was created that late. There are questions as to whether there was a film on the cloth taken for samples which could have corrupted the results. And there is a smaller shroud, the Cloth of Oviedo, with an historical record from the seventh century for Jesus' head, and the stains match the other one. And the nail holes are in the wrists, not the hands, which we now know is more historically accurate, from evidence discussed in the recent PBS series on Jesus. pathfinder.com pbs.org Unfortunately, the online version of the Time story does not include the photographic negative image which is so strikingly like a man's face. That was the most compelling part of the article to me. It is hard to understand how, using medieval technology, anyone could have faked the Shroud. Very mysterious. Anyway, I have found a very interesting organization that pretty much represents my religious views at present--Atheists for Jesus. atheists-for-jesus.com I agree with you and Del about babies, incidentally, X. They are born believers, loving fairy tales and all sorts of fantastic stories, and looking up to their huge parents as very powerful and omniscient (I wish teenagers still believed that part)! On the other hand, it is parents who teach their children their own religious beliefs, teaching them to pray, sending them to Sunday school, reading them simplified Bible stories. There would not be any little children believing in Jesus, or Mohammed, or the Buddha, unless they learned these tales at their parents' knees. In fact, one of the most interesting ethical questions to me is whether parents should teach their own belief systems in early childhood, or wait and encourage their children to develop their own later, when they can reason.

To: epicure who wrote (20300)	4/14/1998 11:31:00 PM
From: WalleyB	Respond to of 108807

That is why the Bible wants people to "be as little children" X, have to comment on your statement, it really is fascinating. You have picked up the truth and discerned it to say, in general, exactly what it was meant to mean - uncommon in this day and age me thinks. The vast majority of the so called christian world believes in the notion that we are born in sin, but how could that be if Jesus said you have to be like one of these to enter the Kingdom. It wasn't until John Calvin postulated his brand of theology that this concept gained wide acceptance, that we are born into sin, thus Calvinism was born. So contrary to that, the Bible teaches tha man is born in a pure state and then on his or her own volition goes astray. And in a world filled with so much garbage is it any wonder? There's my two cents. do with it what you will, I was just passing through when I saw the comments. regards jim