 | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) An appealing notion, but it's circular and non-falsifiable, like the statement that "God answers all prayers but sometimes the answer is no." These can be comforting on an aesthetic level, but they're not really satisfying logically. Dave! (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Whoa!.. Dead men?.. This is the most weird reasoning that I ever heard..:-) It seems that you choose your belief system very(!) critically..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Sorry but I won't buy it. Since it is not true at all. If your founders ethics had been really based on the "Biblical standards/principles/values" there won't be a United States of America today. But this is not the whole point of course, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
(...) No one really thinks that. It just seems that way based on their actions. (...) But what about when both happen? In the recent "debate" on polyamory, I didn't lose my basic premis that monogamy is artificially limiting, but it was occasionally (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) rights, (...) valid, (...) What does that mean? :-) (...) to (...) then (...) Scott, I think that Larry meant you specifically, and others who behave similarly. I think that's clear. But at least his insult to you was thinly veiled. It would (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) <tummy tuck> (...) Chris, The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
(...) For debate to flourish, I think the scope of topics and the numbers taking part have to grow - not the number of posts. The problem is that every question gets turned around, and ends focusing on narrow political/religious points (Frank's (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I see the potential value in .debate, but the way it has started to go recently, I find I am getting frustrated and angry more and more frequently, to the point that I'm not getting anything out of it. One problem is that potentially each time (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
(...) .debate may be getting lots of posts, but I'm not sure that I'd call it flourishing (though the recent posts do seem to be rising out of the quagmire some). Frank (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Not sure of the answers to either of those, at least not in an idealised society. (...) I think my threshold is somewhere around large tanks and fighter jets. Any sort of nukes just sort of "feel wrong" to me. It's a fuzzy argument. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) in (...) Ah, of course! Todd never struck me as being one who liked a debate. :-) Cheers, Paul LUGNET member 164 (URL) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Debate's current problem (was Re: Uselessness of .debate)
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A3F972C.2F1C@minds...ng.com>... (...) Having followed a great many debates here, on Usenet and in my workplace SPAM forum[1], I have watched some of the greats[2] at work such as the legendary Derek Smart, and our own (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A412021.29594A...ape.com... Tom, Thanks for your reply. I hope to get to this soon, but in the meantime, I was wondering if you had any feeback on the rest of my post. I had some (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
|
(...) generated? (Observer here) I'm not sure stats matter, why should they ? I'd take it as a given that anyone who thinks LEGO-mindedly should also have a sufficiently expansive intellect that debate would be an occasional part of one's life - (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) You must not have talked to very many blind people. Many consider it an inconvenience, not crippling. Only the blind can truly state whether it is crippling or not, and that on a personal basis. (...) Good luck breeding/not breeding desires (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Just popping in with another plausible take on the issue of free will vs. God being omniscient-- I like mathematics. I like looking at fractals and examining complex system behavior. I made an algorithm for playing the brickgame at (URL) . I like (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Why not? Omnisicence is commonly defined as "knowing all things." What if the set{all things} changes? Where is it writ in stone that omniscience implies or requires knowledge of the future at all? I've been allowing for that assumption so (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message news:3A3E5530.B9A803...ape.com... Tom, Recently you responded to something I wrote as follows: (...) I agree completely with your assessment, Tom, in that it raises a "larger question" as (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Then it is no longer omniscience. (...) Not to the true definition of omniscience. And if you state God is not omniscient, he really can't be considered God anymore. A creator that does not know his work is not a very good creator. Same goes (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) the (...) You're right that I have a problem with (1). However, even leaving that aside, I see a missing step (or implied assumption) between 2 and 3, which is that procreation is the *only* purpose of sex. If (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
