 | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Remember though, that that kind of evidence is by definition not possible, so it's true that there would be no way to convince you. (...) I was just thinking that, if I were God, how *would* I convince you that I existed? (and how much LEGO I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Quite so-- thanks :) Actually perhaps the correct thing to say is that by the objectivist viewpoint: "Something can ONLY *BE* true if ...." or more to the point: "If something is NOT ...., then it is NOT true." (...) Oh? Actually, I rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) That's the trouble with jumping into the middle of these kinds of things :) I'll see if I can describe it again-- see further down... (...) In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the issue of fairness as I see (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Fair question. I can speak for no one else but myself, an agnostic who's pretty convinced but not 100% certain there is no god. For myself, I would require objective verifiable evidence. Alleged miracles, things that cannot currently be (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) I'm not, but the alliteration was too much to resist. (1) Hence in the example I'm trading the CD AWAY for something I value more. ++Lar 1 - although I do like Sixpence none the Richer... (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Too much! you gotta at least leave who you're talking with... The tree view, of course, has already overflowed and we can't see context clearly... (...) Suggest you leave that as a name rather than a personal pronoun... (...) Ditto. Hope that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Hey Dave, Dave! et al. You are absolutely correct. And while I find these discussions interesting (when I am able to squeeze in the time), they are a bit unsatisfying, because we usually talking apples and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) Wow. I didn't know you were into the music of Jars of Clay, Lar... or were you just waxing poetic? -John (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
<much indiscriminate snippage> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell, we're all over the map. :) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you: (...) I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It looks (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I think the argument goes something like: 'God will show Himself to you if you are faithful/willing to listen. You, posessing free will may not be open to His presentation of Himself, and even if you are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) given (...) Your stace here is (if I understand you correctly) that since a bunch of people think taking my money is OK, that I don't have a right to call it theft. I don't think that makes any sense. No number of opinions in favor, make (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Agreed-- once a fundamental level of subjectivity has been reached, no further progress can be made. My only nitpick was in your saying that the debate itself was worthless, which I would argue it isn't, since exposing those fundamental (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation
|
|
(...) I'm not sure (I wasn't real sure about making that stipulation), but there clearly are things which private organizations can be allowed to do that governments can't (such as discrimination). It probably does amount to a moot point since a (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I guess. But aren't you missing an answer from within your own belief system? If (BIG if) from "Let us create man in our image" we infer that man is imbued with Grace (or the potential for Grace), then it is not unreasonable to say that man, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) Any circularity whatever is sufficient to disqualify a particular item of evidence. (...) No one in this forum (or elsewhere) has yet demonstrated a proof to my satisfaction using this basis, although it's been tried. I feel like a taxonomy of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (...) rotfl :-) Seriously - Why did God create us with an eternal soul? Come on - To know WHY someone does something you would have to know them better than they know themselves. Our (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
(...) I would argue no. I think the Christian argument would probably be that there IS equality in those that it is applying to insofar as it is concerned. I.E. we all start from the same standpoint insofar as morality matters. (...) I believe it is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Free will (was Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity))
|
|
(...) All? No - Just the ones in this thread - and even then it's taking up too much of my time. As I tried to elaborate on before, if I went back in time a minute or a day or whatever and knew that you decided to post this message, how could that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: It IS about Taxation ;-) (Was Re: (Sub|Ob)jectivity and related case studies on .debate (...or is it just about taxation :-)
|
|
(...) It is not hypothetical, Britain did this in 1788. They stopped paying their tax to the UK a while back though... we keep a tab. :-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
