Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:58:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4862 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> > Something just struck me wrong when I read this...
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > Back up there, schoolboy. Atheists *can* be categorized insofar as that they
> > > all have one thing in common that binds them-- no belief in God. But you would
> > > be hard pressed to find a single common belief among *all* Christians, short of
> > > their belief in God (in which case you are hardly talking about Christians in
> > > particular).
> >
> > Back up there, schoolboy. Christians *can* be categorized insofar as that they
> > all have one thing in common that binds them-- belief in God.
>
> But then you wouldn't be talking about *only* Christians. If belief in God is
> your sole criteria, then you would have only a small portion of the group if
> you were speaking of Christians-- Muslims, Jews, Deists, etc would be a part of
> that group as well. You would have no way to separate Christians from the
> other God-believing groups.
Replace "Christians" with any "Religious" and the sentence still makes sense
- much sense.
> > But you would
> > be hard pressed to find a single common belief among *all* Atheists, short of
> > their lack of belief in God (in which case you are hardly talking about
> > Atheists in particular).
>
> Because they don't have any (When we talk about beliefs, we are talking about
> *religious* beliefs). They are defined by their complete lack of religious
> beliefs.
See "Buddhist" (sp?)
> > > Further, I attacked *extremist* Muslims, which are a group who *all* believe in
> > > the concept of jihad and find the killing of innocents *perfectly* acceptable.
> > > You *will not* find such agreement in Christianity, or any other religion
> > > AFAIK (although you *might* find it in some *extreme* fringe group, but they
> > > would be condemned by the group as a whole anyway). The equation of such
> > > extremist groups and their larger groups is what I find objectionable.
> >
> > so...
> >
> > I could attack *extremist* Christians,
>
> Yes, of course. That is my point.
>
> which are a group who *all* believe in
> > the concept of bombings and find the killing of innocents *perfectly*
> > acceptable. You *will not* find such agreement in Islam,
>
> Not true. There *are* Muslims who condemn Muslim extremists-- I only wish more
> would speak out against it.
The mere fact that you don't hear them does not mean they are not there...
these are the ones that do not attend rallies, so it's unlikely they'll ever
be seen on Prime Time ;-)
But trust me, they are there, and are more than you might think at first.
> > or any other religion
> > AFAIK (although you *might* find it in some *extreme* fringe group, but they
> > would be condemned by the group as a whole anyway). The equation of such
> > extremist groups and their larger groups is what I find objectionable.
> >
> >
> > Can't you see how much you're contridicting yourself?
>
> No. I think you are either missing my point or making an incorrect analogy or
> both. Regardless, your splicing up my post is obfuscating.
I disagree - Dan proved your point to be unsustainable. I'm surprised that
you won't find that!
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
