 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Which atheists are you referring to? Certainly not me, since I've never demanded any proof of God's existence. I *have* demanded proof of miracles such as prophecies, because these are terrestrial in effect, and therefore part of the natural (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Then WHY do atheists and agnostics try and hold religion up to the scientific method? Seems to me you can't have your cosmic cake and eat it too. Anyone stating that they need some sort of proof or evidence that God exists is inconsistent, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertopia - unproven theory
|
|
Missed a point... (...) Frank Filz. But that was a while back. (assuming you meant "converts"... you're not *supposed* to see "coverts", that's why they're covert. Me, I think Scott Arthur is secretly a LP member and doesn't want to admit it. :-) (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertopia - unproven theory
|
|
(...) Ya, there's not a lot of unplowed ground 'round these parts to be seen of late, is there? (1) And with debate hijacking going on all over the place, when we find some new nuance, it doesn't take long before it gets turned into some sort of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: LP POINT 1
|
|
(...) How do you define the haves and have nots? My father is the first generation of college educated people in his line and my mother is the second. They grew up lower middle class. (My grandparents were: an electrician, a secretary, an elementary (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
|
(...) This is a deep epistimological issue. Which part don't we know? I don't know that the sun came up this morning (I've been at work since before sunrise) but I don't just 'think' that it has. Actually, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertopia - unproven theory
|
|
(...) Thanks! (...) [snip] (...) Not in my dictionary. Still == remains to be. [snip] (...) I agree, but this debate, along with abortion and Lego vs. Legos, have been beat to death. I haven't seen any coverts on either side of any of those (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) I disagree with that, but not too sharply. Science is not a matter of faith at all, since it is at its essence a system seeking to verify itself through observation rather than saying "it is that way because it is that way, end of story." (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Lar was already kind enough to answer before I had a chance to respond, and he summed it up pretty nicely for me (thanks, Lar!) I'll elaborate just so I'm not guilty of a "me too" post. Many scientists certainly do believe in a god or ultimate (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Not true! The Geocentric earth theory is certainly not current to any rational way of thinking, nor is the reproduction-by-stork theory. I label creationism a current theory because certain camps are actively promoting its inclusion in public (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
I ain't Dave! (...) I think Dave! answered it already when he said they were different realms. I think no more or less of a scientist because of his non scientific beliefs, unless he indulges in Jon Kozan's fallacy of letting faith pollute his (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertopia - unproven theory
|
|
Welcome back Ed! (...) True enough. In fact, they won't even elect *the LP's* characterization of the LP, which is far more accurate and far more flattering. Libertopia is still only a pipedream, an ideal society. Two points though. Does (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Problem of Evil
|
|
(...) Flawed. Prove free will rather than determinism. Prove to me that your actions are not determined by your nervous system, learned behavior, socialization skills, etc. Free will is an idea I tend to agree with because I find it aesthetically (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Problem of Evil
|
|
(...) Flawed. God is good and gives us free will to choose evil. Respecting this choice is a part of honoring our autonomy. (...) If God wanted to. See above. (...) Flawed. Explain how to quantify evil. (...) This goes without saying. (...) Maybe (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Problem of Evil
|
|
Hey Y'all: I see some of you exerting some considerable effort around the subject of the problem of evil. I thought I might summarize the essentials if I might... The problem of evil is normally worded in the manner of a theorem, as are the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Hey Dave!-- I just thought of a question to which I would like to hear your response: What do you think about scientists who believe in God? Does believing in something unprovable put into question their worthiness as scientists? Or is there (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) I know Jon can speak for himself, but just to clarify things -- I think Jon is alluding to the idea of the "prime mover" or "first cause." No one knows what the first cause of the universe was or is. Science, on this count as well as others, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) I suppose you're testing me with this false statement, since as a physicist you surely know that the greatest strength of science is precisely its ability to grow as understanding grows, rather than stagnate on centuries of dogma; if it were (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertopia - unproven theory
|
|
(...) Yeah, what we have now, with bought and paid for politicians delivering the goods to the various special interest groups that own them is much better, isn't it? (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Libertopia - unproven theory
|
|
You can debate the benefits and drawbacks of Libertopia all you want. The fact is that it is still only a pipedream. The majority of Americans would never elect a party that would base governmental, social service or public education funding on the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
