| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > You would be mistaken to form your opinion of God based soley on the
> > account of Job,
>
> And you in turn would be mistaken to think I had done so.
>
> I've studied the whole bible (and read a fair bit elsewhence) not just that
> one particular OT book. It's just that Job sums up your god quite nicely for
> me. Most of the rest is smoke or falsifyable or testamentary.
>
> > which, it seems to me, that you have (conveniently)
> > decided to do. God is so much easier to dismiss that way.
> >
> > If you truly were a seeker of Truth, I would think that you'd investigate a
> > little more strenuously.
>
> Not sure you have a firm grasp on what Truth actually means, or how one goes
> about finding it, but I'll stack my investigation depth and strenuousness
> against all comers. This isn't some idle fancy of mine that I whomped up
> yesterday, it's something I've researched in depth and given a great deal of
> thought to over the span of many years.
>
> > But it is my contention that you, along with other atheists, will not believe
> > in the existence of a Creator God because of pride and convenience. If not,
> > maybe you might share why (because I *know* that it couldn't be *proven* to
> > you).
>
> I disbelieve in your particular (malevolent in my view) god because I prefer
> to think the universe isn't actively evil. I contend that christianity as
> practiced on earth has caused much more harm than good, yet most of the
> practicioners seem to be convinced they are the real deal.
>
> Maybe they're flawed in their practice because your guy can't, or won't,
> make them properly. Maybe I'm wrong and your god is just a terrible
> communicator who can't get his point across, not actually malevolent. But
> the evidence, such as it is, about his nature points to malevolence. And
> I'll go down in flames before I worship that. (although I admit that the
> aphorism "never ascribe to malevolence what can adequately be explained by
> stupidity" may well apply to your god in this case... maybe he's just
> terminally dumb!)
>
> I disbelieve in creators (more generally, as your guy is not by any means
> the only possible creator) because of Occam's Razor. But that's not so much
> an active dislike as it is merely a healthy skepticism. I'm a teeny bit
> shaded toward agnostic (from strict atheist) in this area, because I'm
> perfectly willing to accept that there may well be an irrelevant creator out
> there as the causative force that got the universe started. I'm willing to
> admit that possibility without any need for evidence or proof.
>
> But as soon as you posit any relevance, that is, any effect on reality other
> than the initial push that got the system started, you have to have some
> proof, some falsifyability, or it HAS no relevance. And that's lacking, as I
> just don't take things on faith. I try to be entirely rational, that is,
> entirely human. Don't succeed, but I do try.
>
> That you choose to deny your humanity in part is certainly your choice, but
> it's not one I choose. That might be a little prideful, yes.
>
> I admit it, I'm proud of being more rational (and thus more human and thus
> more successful) than the average joe sixpack. I've never made any secret of
> that, have I?
>
> As far as this choice of mine being convenient???
>
> Hardly.
>
> It is much more convenient to believe in the christian mythos, happily
> absolved of any need to actually be righteous in this life as long as one
> truly believes and truly is sorry for all the murders and sorrows one
> causes... much more convenient to just roll over when liberty is taken away
> by bible thumpers... much more convenient to accept what is spoon fed to one
> on faith.
>
> No thanks, though. I'll take the hard road.
Once again I have to reiterate--there are many knowledgable and well learned
folks partaking in these debates. Thanks for the intriguing posts.
I uphold a system in which Larry can believe what he chooses to believe, as
I uphold a system in which John can choose to believe what he chooses to as
well.
To get into my thoughts on a particular issue which vexes me, (and maybe
it's just me alone, but this is why I have responded to the things I have)
can best be started by a scene (wait for it...) out of Star Trek.
(again, don't dismiss the point 'cause you don't appreciate where it came
from...)
In ST6, the Klingons were at dinner with the crew of the Enterprise. Chekov
said, in response to the ongoing conversation,
"We believe that everyone has unalienable human rights."
In response, the Klingon high commander's daughter says,
"Unalien, Human rights--if you could just hear yourselves talk..."
To bring this scenario back to us, it seems as if the different sides
believe that everyone has the rights of that specific group, and everything
else outside that camp is either irrelevant or just outright wrong.
I have read in some of these posts in o-t.d "Teaching my kid creationism is
like teaching 2 + 2 = 5", as in creationism is outright wrong.
And even in Larry's post above,
Quoteth
> I try to be entirely rational, that is,
> entirely human. Don't succeed, but I do try.
As in, rationality is all there is to be human, and nothing else can be
considered to be as human.
I like to think I'm rational. I like to think, if given a choice between
thinking I can sprout wings and fly to the moon, and, well, not, that I
would possibly come down on the, well, not side of the equation.
I do appreciate that Larry also errs on the agnostic side, as in it really
doesn't affect the current scenario of life to think that some entity
started all this mess, but it is in the purview of science and rationality
that we can best define the physical world that we have, and faith doesn't
factor into it. But that was not what was said for the longest time in
these debates--what was said was belittling of any other POV that anyone
else had, for example saying that their beliefs are akin to 2 + 2 equalling 5.
I err just a little farther than agnostic for I can't conceive of such a
structured and complex environment maintaining itself, plus just on this
planet alone one species has evolved to the point that it has rationality
and intelligence, but again, this is how I came to interpret the facts
before me, and no one else has to see it my way. But the constantly
belittling, the constant twisting of words, the constant baiting of the
other side, the condescension, does not help the debate. (This is not in
response to Larry's post above for I found it well worded and without
animosity towards any other POV, he was just stating his perspective, not
saying it is the right one)
I originally got into this particular thread because of, well, a grammar
issue. It's like using a picture of a toilet to say John. I mean, if we
capitalize proper names like Larry, Dave!, and John, at the very least it's
grammatically correct to say Christmas, Christians, or Christianity.
You don't have to appreciate, or even remotely like something to do what's
right. I mean, we still should capitalize the A and the H in Adolf Hitler,
for it is grammatically right (Ooops! The A-H-bomb!!!)
End of discussion.
Dave K
(to distinguish me from the others in teh field)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) And you in turn would be mistaken to think I had done so. I've studied the whole bible (and read a fair bit elsewhence) not just that one particular OT book. It's just that Job sums up your god quite nicely for me. Most of the rest is smoke or (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 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
|
|
|
|
