 | | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
|
(...) I admit that I'm not well read, as I've said many times, I've not been to college. I honestly hadn't read Pascal nor his wager - until last night at this location, which is quite good: (URL) reading in the past has been limited in many ways, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
|
(...) Yeah? Well what about Catholics who worship the saints? Isn't that idolatry? Chris :-) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
|
(...) This isn't really minor. It's kind of the crux of the past three thousand years of philosophy. (...) Woa! What does that mean? I'm not sure that such an assertion is obvious at all. Truths are multilayered, and most things are true/real in (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
|
(...) No offense back, but I believe that you were failed by your education. (...) The idea that one philosophy is more defensible than another does not negate those who adhere to the less defensible philosophy. (...) And a Christian says there is a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
|
(...) If you sincerely thought you came up with Pascal's wager on your own, you're not very well read. Try www.yahoo.com with Pascal's Wager as search string. If you sincerely thought that no one has yet thought about how to refute it, you're not (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Don't you get it? (...) Don't you get it, man? Haven't you been listening? That's fine that they are separate realms. It's just fine and dandy. You can use whatever metrics you like for your beliefs. But (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) <just going off on a tangent here> Why should we privilege rationalism as a source of understanding? And if we should, should it be the only type of insight that informs our understanding? --DaveL (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An interesting North American Election (was Re: Cdn Election Day)
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification Steve, but how could it work? How would you determine the "wishes" of the constituents (who are presumably a diverse bunch of people who would disagree on what they wanted their MP to say and do on their behalf). (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Come again? I'm saying it is inconsistent to expect proof of God's existence when that is by definition not possible. Science and religion are separate realms, so don't hold one up to the other as a test of its validity. -John (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
|
Ohhhh, I see. EVERYTHING is plowed ground, there is nothing new under the sun. Gee, yeah, they must have brought down the walls of Jericho with a tactical nuke, because there is nothing new under the sun, they've ALWAYS existed, right? (...) -- Tom (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) You know no better than Larry. I seriously doubt God (IF he exists) tapped you on the shoulder and told you exactly what he requires. You are going by what an old BOOK says (a book that is VERY old, and conflicts internally quite a bit), a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Why it is not inconsistent for you to assume we should be forced to prove God's nonexistence in order to not belive in him? -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Problem of Evil
|
|
(...) THE ENTIRE BIBLE is a collection of stories. It conflicts itself all over the place. I suppose you pull the standard dodges, and only pick what parts you agree with, and say they are true while the rest MUST be wrong? -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
|
So, what you're saying, being a Christian, and a believer in the Bible, is that you'd rather be ignorant and happy? Then stop posting in and reading .debate ;-) (...) <snip> (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
|
(...) I made points, that for me, are unresolved, and asked an honest question because I sincerely want an answer. For me it's not plowed ground. If you don't like it, don't participate. (...) I disagree. I've learned much, and not afraid to admit, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal repeats himself: (...) No, your point is that someone ASSERTS that everything everyone can imagine is plowed ground. Not everything actually is, John. That person is wrong. There are wonders still to discover, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory" - Outcomes
|
|
(...) Since we have already concluded everything as plowed ground, and the major participants concede that neither can persuade the other, I propose moving passed plowed ground to the crop yielded by the ground. Assuming that atheism were "the" (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
|
(...) AMEN! ;^) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
|
(...) It could have been two words for all you read. Do you have any idea why I cited it? (...) Mighty white of....forget it, plowed ground;-) (...) At the risk (hope;) of annoying you further, I'll recite the absolute pertinent part of the (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
|
(...) Had to stick that in there, eh? For what reason would you give that the existence of God is implausible? (...) Fair enough. But if I'm asking you to consider something which by definition can't be scrutinized by the scientific method, and you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
