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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (51802)	6/5/1999 9:55:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>Well. First, I must apologize for my hasty response. Apparently you do have some support for your claim.< Eeeeyup, and I still have support for my claim, despite your recent statements. You claim the notion of whether God exist is unanswerable when in fact whether the question is unanswerable is at least as unanswerable. You follow your atheistic meaninglessness on the basis of a false faith, just like most folks. Ask yourself this question with utmost sincerity – “Precisely what do I require to believe in God?” Do you think you require miracles? Then think again. Where does this leave you? Hopelessly cut off. >I really think that you should examine what it is that compels you, or what lack it is that allows you, to deny my claim to my own view.< There is but one thing that compels me to believe as I do regarding agnosticism: Common Sense. It really has nothing to do with you. Heck, you get your little feathers all ruffed up because you think I'm threatened by your little “ethics?” I have long said here that some atheists can find a basis for a “morality” that in many ways coincides with that of Christians. (In many other ways this “morality“ will cause conflict. It also has no overarching authority and is made subjective by human weakness). This sort of thing is no threat, as it indeed confirms what the Scriptures have said long before you started babbling about your little menace to theism. (grin – Oooh. I'm sure God is just trembling in His heavenly boots up there.) It confirms that God has built into you and every other human His divine law; and that that law condemns you, because despite all your talk about “JESUS” and “kindness,” you cannot follow even your flawed perception of it. >While I might (and have done so) stoop so low as to state that you are a hypocritical theist or an incomplete theist or an inconsistent theist or what-have-you, I would never think to say, "You are not a theist."< Of course you would not think to say this because theism exists. Agnosticism does not, and herein lies the difference. If you do not believe in God, you are “a-theist.” >The simple fact that you believe yourself to be such means that for all intents and purposes you are.< This sounds all nice and happy, but it really is nonsense. You really should think about this junk before you say it. >I might think that you aren't very good at it, but that is simply my opinion. I would never blithely state, "No you're not." All I have sought is that same consideration from others.< You must distil the thing to its bare essentials and then judge what remains, instead of getting carried away with unnecessary details that cause only superficial distinctions. When I do this with agnosticism, I find it leaves a fundamental lack of belief in God. Since it is God's existence that defines the debate in the first place, I must by reason judge the issue in terms of His existence. Agnostics do not believe in His existence, and therefore they are atheists. You want consideration? I consider you an atheist. We will simply have to agree to disagree (though I can hardly see how you can disagree). Actually we do not even have to do this. You just go on believing as you do. Its what "cut off" folks will do anyway.