Debate : 17165


Off-Topic / Debate / 17165

Re: slight —John Neal

(...) Okay, that's interesting to me that you would acknowledge a resistance the idea of the existence of a Creator. Taken all the way to the beginning, one needs to agree on *some* starting point. Either you believe it all just started from (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) idea (...) from (...) The existence of a creator, to me, implies that he's still hanging around. Since there is no evidence to support that, and it seems like there would have to be if He were really there, I choose to go with spontaneous (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) I have to admit I almost snorted milk out my nose reading this "deep programming" and "childhood trauma" bit. Too much! =) But, if I may say so, it is no more obnoxious to express derision or condescension for John's views than it is for him (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Ross Crawford

(...) The only comment I'll make here is that the soul is generally defined to be a part of humanity which *can* be separated from the body at death, so I think this is not a logical assumption. But I see no reason why things that make the flesh (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I really didn't mean for it to be funny. It just seems like how this kind of faith is generally built. What else would explain it? Even those born-again seem to be the result of a different kind of indoctrination. (...) One difference is that (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) I have stated many times that *my* form of Christianity takes the form of leaving you to run your life the way you want as long as you reciprocate. It's the phrasing 'wacko Xtian' (and related spelling and ideas) which kinda started this whole (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) "Only way?!?!" Aren't we talking about Big-G God here? The "only way" an infinite being can do something is however it wants to! And if that's not the case, then I can think of something greater than "a God who can't do things any way He (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Not only is my grammar atrocious, but my spelling as well. Sorry 'bout that--firstly no spell check via web interface, and secondly, I think, I type, and mostly don't bother to re-read. (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) OK, so when Moses (or God, depending on what you believe) tells us not to covet the neighbor's wife, what do you believe you shouldn't do? Is it a sin to nail your neighbor's wife? What if she wants you to? What if her husband does too? There (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Here's a thought--with freedom comes responsibility. Stop twisting and making irrelevant points--that point you made has nothing to do with my idea, which is the non-separation of body and soul. Nowhere in the 10 commandments does it command (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) I think Chris's point is that this is an absolute of Mosaic Law that goes against the "experiencing joy, love, happiness, sensualness, whatever" that was suggested as all ok in your comments. I'm certain that you didn't intend the "where-ever (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) And I think my point, reiterated, is that Chris twisted it into saying the Mosaic law says you cannot derive pleasure from living, which is far from the truth. Nowhere in the testaments does this concept even exist. I am not a biblical scholar (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) <snipped the first chunk, becuase we're starting to argue in circles> (...) Not quite what I was saying; I should have been more specific. It is often necessary to the healing process for someone who has been in an abusive relationship to (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) I have a problem with this form of the Golden Rule -- it's in the form of an exhortation to some kind of action. I prefer "Do not unto others as you would have others not do unto you." Point being: I want to be left alone. The form you have (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) Same philosophy, different expression. Your version has the same inherent flaw: I do not want others to leave me alone, therefore I will not leave others alone. ;p Just about any pat rendering of morality or social expression will have a flaw (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) Can you come up with an example that isn't wildly contrived or overly concerned with the fate of bacteria or ants? -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) Stunningly easy: "Jane" and "Joe" are in a relationship that is no longer working out. Staying together is causing a fair degree of pain and stress for them; seperating will also couse a fair degree of pain and stress. Neither action has the (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, I think you are stressing the word "harm" a bit here. Everyone knows it takes two to tango, but only one to stop the dance. Them's the breaks... I'll take this opportunity to quote Mr. Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) Hmm, I don't think so. My understanding is that most of the "harm" modern Wiccan philosophy means to address is emotional and spiritual in nature, rather than physical, although I'll admit that I haven't made an in-depth study of it. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Fergus spake these words and he said, This shall be my Creed, whereby shall I live my life as it were a shining example of Virtue and Excellence, well worthy to be enshrined in Heaven as a model for all who are to follow. My Creed shall into (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

christian morals are inferior to tolerant morals —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Why not? You'll have to present an argument other than "from authority" to convince me differently. Assuming we've named all the stakeholders, and they're all consenting adults who actually consented (posit this for the sake of the argument, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: christian morals are inferior to tolerant morals —David Eaton

(...) "Larry's morals and David's are equivalently good within your separate personal contexts." :) (...) Interesting note, though. In this particular case, you *haven't* judged David's theoretical person who *wouldn't*, whereas David has actually (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: christian morals are inferior to tolerant morals —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It wouldn't. (at least absent more particulars anyway...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —David Koudys

(...) Forgetting authority, forget the laws of the land and forget the laws of the bible nad foget that I'm a Christian and that you're, well, not... Thank you for making my point so crystal clear. (and the following point does *not* make Christians (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —David Eaton

(...) I think you just dodged the question here-- unless you're insinuating that science should dictate our morals? IE that *because* we can eliminate STD's if we stick to having one partner, that it's morally good? But back to the point. Let's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Let's face it -- that's exactly what this is, despite your denial. If diseases cannot succeed in one way, they will do so in another way. Or put another way: the diseases whose transmissal routes are frustrated will die; but the diseases whose (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —David Koudys

(...) Just because you say it is don't make the buttercups shine. I know what I said and I stand by it. I am on *record* of supporting same sex marriages. I don't care if you want a harem--gov't should *not* legislate morality. I know loving and (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not a moral reason not to... (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —James Brown

(...) ...except in a very esotaric sense that taking action to prevent harmful diseases is life-affirming. <GD&R> :) James (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I already said there are "no other stakeholders". If one of the participants has an STD, there are other stakeholders. Nice try though. (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Except those passed from mother to child, like HIV, right? And those with other transmision vectors right? And anyway, let's imagine that everyone on earth got an authoritative bill of health and a list of their transmissible infections was (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Dave Schuler

(...) During my teen years there would have been no greater incentive NOT to have sex than to have to watch my parents going at it. Dave! (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —David Koudys

(...) Oh I so agree with you. Parents... sex... Ick!!! Dave K (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not sure what degree of humor is intended by either of you, but I've heard that before and bet you're both wrong. If you had been raised seeing sexual expression of your parents love as a normal event, you would not be squicked by the (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Dave Schuler

(...) I was indeed being facetious, but I can see the issue you're addressing. I note that you're already putting a spin on it that presupposes your view to be right and mine to be wrong; specifically, you are saying that your favorable emotional (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Actually, I didn't. I said that I "bet" that you would feel differently if things had been different. (...) That would be fine with me. But I think the "ickyness" that we feel when considering our parents having sex is based on having sex be (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Dave Schuler

(...) Darn it Chris, I'm trying to pick a fight here. Rise to it, man! Rise to it! (...) That would indeed be a strange lab to perform. Dave! (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —David Koudys

(...) K, this one made me laugh out loud. That would be something to see (but probably still have a high 'Ick" factor). Again, something that others can do, but I probably would *ahem* abstain... Is like the new law in Ontario which states that (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Stephen Hurn

(...) This is why hypothetical situations fail, particularly when in relation to members of the opposite sex :). Thus far all that has been discussed is based upon a series of hypothetical people who all think that sex is something that is based (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: tolerant morals are a blueprint to disaster (but I don't force a change) —Christopher L. Weeks

You have so completely oversimplified the possibilities in your analysis that a complete evaluation would be quite lengthy. (...) No one thinks this. At least not any more than every feeling-complex is purely physical because our brain contains our (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Thomas Stangl

(...) covet (...) nail (...) too? (...) Pishtosh. If all involved have no problem with it, then there is nothing immoral about it. Marriage is what you make of it, not some hard-coded morality. (...) While I do believe somewhat in moral absolutes, I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

I thought we might agree on something fundamental from the way you were talking. Alas... (...) I agree. (...) It does have to do with the pleasure of the flesh and the pleasure of the spirit. I'm not twisting or making irrelevant points. And I think (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) I don't mind your points at all--I like them just fine, and I think I responded to them. The way I saw it, though, was twisting the original intent of the message, which is the bible does not deny physical pleasure and it does not separate the (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

David, I get your stance on the commandment now. They aren't actually laws that God passed down about how to live your life. They're just good ideas. I'm pretty sure that's not how most Christians would characterize them, but that's really neither (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Love is limitless, 'cause, for me it comes from a limitless God, but that's neither here nor there. If it feels good, do it, is a claim of moral reletivism. I know that it's too simplistic, so lets dispense with that 'cause I think we all (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Not only do I think "if it feels good, do it" is a grand philosophy, I think it's the only philosophy. It's the one that we all follow every day, every time we make any kind of decision. You make the assumption that it must be short-sighted, (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Thomas Stangl

(...) You forgot to mention vasectomies, which are the "best" of the above, IMO, because one man can impregnate 100s of women, but not the reverse ;-) (i.e., 1 man and 10 women can easily result in 10 or more babies within a year, but 10 men and 1 (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Skin heads feel better if there are no coloured people around. 'If it feels good, just do it' is *not* a grande philosophy. I'm debating in this thread now because I enjoy it--the second I stop enjoying it is the second I'm outta here, but (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Name one. I'm not saying that there isn't one, I just think you need to establish that with a bit more certainity than you present. And yes, I'm actually asking for some supporting evidence, not just a name. :-) Bruce (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) And far too much that's not addressed, such as: What if my neighbor's wife covets me? What if I covet my neighbor's daughter? What if I covet my own daughter? What if I covet my sister? What if I covet my neighbor? What if the only way to keep (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I dunno about you but I'd prefer something a little better than 60-70% accurate! (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) This reminds me of that old George Carlin skit, when he related the story of him and his buddies trying to trip up their Padre, 'Um Fathah, if we missed holy communion, but we were on an airplane and crossed the international dateline, but we (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If every christian really believed this, and acted in accordance with it, I'd have no beef with christians and christianity. But they don't. So many professed christians in positions of power use that power to enforce their morals on others (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) I would be inclined to rephrase that as "So many people in positions of power use that power to..." I don't think that Christians, professed or otherwise are alone in abusing positions of power to set their world view on people; the Taliban (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Lester Witter

(...) <snip> < Admittedly, (...) It seems to be a fundemental flaw in human nature that the type of personality required to reach a position of power is exactly the type of personality that you do not want that person to have Lester (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) A point wnderfully articulated in book 1 of the 5 book Trilogy, The Hitch Hikers Guide the the Galaxy, in reference to Zaphod Beeblebrox, the then president of the universe. (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) No evidence to support the existance of God? THe sustaining of all physical properties is not enough? Sure science can say, 'Oh, these pieces over here are made of these molecules, and these molecules are made of these atoms, and these atoms (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) have (...) Right. (...) Uh, no. Is it really your assertion that Jehova is personally seeing to it that every electron tunnels just so? Man, what a bore. He ought to code the universe so that scripts take care of such things. (...) Well, that (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) I agree. I would further ask John how he would demonstrate to someone permanently locked indoors that wind exists. (...) I had salmon last night--it tasted great and smelled great. Does that help? 8^) (...) For those playing along at home, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Feed him beans and cabbage...oh, sorry, not that type of wind. I'll just be moving along, then.... (...) I have a dog with no nose. How does he smell? Terrible! (rimshot) (...) It is possible that time is an illusion, or that the universe (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) This is *not* a discussion on the merits of science. I have stated time and time again that I *love* science and what it does (for the most bit--velcro--too much noise!) One side of this discussion esteems science to be the *only* factor for (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) OK David, I wasn't trying to wriggle away from your point. And maybe I'm just slow, but I really don't get the impeccable logic that you're presenting. Let's focus on this one really small idea for a bit. What is it that to your way of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Anything in the physical world can be investigated by the scientific method. Art maybe made of physical properties such as clay, rock, dyes(paint) on canvas, whatever. However, most artists say they were 'inspired', whether by a muse or (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Kadinsky? Anyway, read Dr. Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (I believe there is a new edition "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain"). She uses numerous techniques for teaching drawing that in fact had been (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) And let me mention that a spider web is, to me, quite the piece of art as well. Leftist thinking or Rightist thinking does not an artist make, nor intelligence or stupidity a defining factor for art, or for that matter, even *human*. I find (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm sorry to keep harping on this point, but it is really central to your approach to the entire debate. I believe the literal translation is "I don't know what" (thanks, Dr. Evil!) which is *fundamentally* different from "it cannot possibly (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) And to think I grew up in a bi-lingual country (english/french)! Thanks! It's like the dutch saying (and the spelling will be completely wring here...) 'Ich Vait het neet' which means I know it not... Somebody throw me a frikkin' booone here! (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Pedro Silva

(...) Actually, the french expression *has* that idiomatic meaning associated with it. The literal translation is correct, but in some contexts - such as this one - the other meaning will apply. (...) J'ai jeté l'os, maintenant c'est à toi de te (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You can have whatever belief you like. It's when you want ME to believe that you have to play by my rules. And if you're forcing your morality on me (not you, David K, but the generic you) meaning you want me to believe in a christian god... (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The book is speaking about what part of your brain you use to execute art, not your relative liberal or conservative thinking. Read the book and you'll understand. (...) What is this "it" are you talking about? An emotional appeal? Yes, it (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Love to read it, and I'll get to it. (...) Thank you for making my point clear--emotions have nothing to do with science, and I never wanted to infer, allude, or say they ever (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) See? This is why I only skim your replies... Bruce is talking about a debate technique called an "emotional appeal" -- usually this takes the form of something that stirs the emotions of a reader or listener but that also tends to lack a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Joseph Williams

(...) This hominid-centric viewpoint that we are the sole custodians of emotions baffles me. Richard you do a great job at explaining the possible origins of them as have several others in this thread. (...) The albatross which is the oldest living (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) There is no such assertion being made by me. Human examples merely avoid the extra step of having to describe how one knows the experience of another species. I think I read "Ghost in the Machine" many, many years ago. A lot of the stuff that (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Joseph Williams

(...) wasn't saying you were making that assertion, noting how you argued ~against~ it. that viewpoint is shared by many here and zillions over the globe that humans are the only ones with souls, as we once thought we were the center of the physical (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) Really? Do you have a convenient cite for this? I did some google searching, and only found 2nd or 3rd hand references of dubious quality. I have heard the 4-6 year thing before, but never from a particularly qualified source. It's also never (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: <snip> (...) Well, there's a movie called 'The 7 Year Itch'... ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

4-6 year human mating cycle (was Re: slight) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Yeah, I don't have ready access to any of my old cultural or physical anthropology standbys so all I can do is assert some stuff from memory. The linked theories here are those concerning "serial monogamy", "sperm wars", and "love as chemical (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I said "an emotional appeal", not emotions. I've clipped the rest of your paragraph because it was preceeding on a false premise. An emotional appeal is one that does not rely on fact, but instead tries to invoke an emotional response to gain (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Show me. Just don't say it's a false premise and clip it. It's like, 'I don't agree with that--it doesn't make scientific sense, therefore its false or invalid' which *is* the very nature of this discussion. I never wanted to invoke an (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Go back and look since you clearly didn't bother to read it in the first place. (...) Another attempt at an emotional response: imply that emotional responses must be "touchy-feely" and therefore something of derision that you wouldn't use. (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) K, we're just not reading one another here. At all. And I don't know if both of us are just being obtuse, but here's my premise: Science is a good way for us to come to understand the physical universe. Things may exist outside the scope of (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Bruce Schlickbernd

My son wandered in and logged me off when I stepped away and wiped out my almost finished reply. I'm not going to go back and type it up all again for two reasons. One is that it is too much work. Second is that all I'm doing is being forced to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Maggie Cambron

(...) Aughhh, it's times like that when you just need to step away and get some fresh air... maybe walk the dog... and the cat... the bird.... Maggie C. (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) One guess where I was when my son decided the computer was his to use.... The bird has a new technique to avoid the harness: he puts his head down flush with my arm so that I can't loop it around him. He's too flipping smart (but he's still a (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

(...) Good researching. I did take myself out back and slapped myself around a bit--well, figuratively anyway. And I have no problem admitting that, in that particular debate about Ev'n vs Cr'm, things did get a little outta hand (some even had to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Christopher L. Weeks

I thought I had quit this thread, but this note was too cool! I think it would make an interesting qualitative study of newsgroup dynamics to get the major participants of a bulky thread to recap the thread in detail. Each of them would emphasize (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> And that point is tiresome for me to point out again, and again, and again, but I will, because pointing out the truth, as people here may agree--is the right (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) out (...) Yes, I understand. I suppose I was using a short-hand description. My bad. I think we all know and understand what you're asserting. And it's still wrong. It seems that you are suggesting that the nature of "a god" is to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

(...) Forgetting about the nature of my particular chosen religion, and *my* God therein, the question before us is, 'Can *something* exist outside of science?' The idea that I have a faith in an infinite God is inconsequential. The thought that (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Dave Schuler

(...) Since you cast aspersions on Chris' reading comprehension in (URL) is inexcusable that you should fail to read his subsequent post correctly. He is not questioning the "reasons" for your assertion; he's questioning the "reasoning" for it. Can (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

(...) And I mention to you, Dave! right now, that questioning 'the reasoning for the assertion' instead of the 'reasons' for it, makes my point *even* more clear-- If I were to ask: Is black, black? I have my reasons for saying that this should be (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Dan Boger

(This is a very interesting thread to follow, imo :) something isn't right here: (...) no, C1 will only follow if P1 said: P1: Science can explain only the physical universe. Which is not the claim that was made, I believe. I'm not sure what would (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Faulty thinking and faulty assumptions again. Your having faith is an observable phenomenon that can be studied. Science would not deny that existence of your *having* faith -- it might study the chemical or physical reasons that you maintain (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> (...) That about sums it up for me, as well. Nicely said. Dave K. (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Richard Marchetti

(...) I am not sure how to take this statement. Are you accepting Aristotlean methods as the chief utility of scientific thought and all rational inquiry, or are you somehow thinking that you go from "I don't know" to asserting the existence of your (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

(...) Start passing out the cigars. I may not know all the principles that Aristotle laid out, but if it's based on the concept that" Quoteth Hop-Frog " (...) " summed up into " (...) " I'm on the same page. Whether we disagree that I have always (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) This was kind of a sub-point that you took the wrong way. Instead of discussing the stuff that stems from that, I'd like to restate slightly. It seems when you claim that to some that science is a god _because_ those people assert that science (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) <snip> People 'make gods' to explain things. I think that's a pretty much historically accurate statement. Not *all* people 'make up' gods--some folks don't have any gods, and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Oops, talk about getting distracted at work--my God exists *for me*, whether you believe it or not--was a stupid omission, not a malicious one. Dave K. (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Bruce Schlickbernd

I'm not sure of the point of the selective recap, but I'll let the others answer for themselves. (...) "Once there was a way, to get back home...." You are the one equating science and god. Yes, I know, you are staring at your screen and saying, "I (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

(...) "Take the long way home..." (my favourite song from my favourite group...) (...) Then consider it grasped, my friend. I made a statement that equated science as a god, and for that, I apologize. If I say that science is not a god, can we agree (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Home again, home again, Jiggedty jig. Bruce Still round the corner there may wait, A new road or a seret gate; And though I oft have passed them by, A day will come at last when I Shall take the hidden paths that run West of the Moon, East of (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight) —David Koudys

(...) A! Elbereth Gilthoniel! silivren penna miriel o menel aglar elenath, Gilthoniel, A! Elbereth! We still remember, we who dwell In this far land beneath the trees The starlight on the Western Seas. (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Ross Crawford

(...) I kinda like "Fool's overture" and "Babaji" (can you guess my fave album?) ROSCO (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Maggie Cambron

(...) It's only Logical what Song my favorite would have to be.... Maggie C. (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —David Koudys

(...) I was 9 when I bought 'Crime of the Century' -- LP!! (Still have it--I actually have 2 milk crates full of records and don't own a record player) I missed the 'Famous Last Words...' concert tour by 5 minutes--I was off timing and scorekeeping (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Ross Crawford

(...) [snip] (...) hehe! And I like how they manage to sneak in a bit of Churchill's speech too 8?) But I gotta say, I rank Fleetwood Mac (various incarnations) above Supertramp - there's just more of their songs that I like! (And I got to see MF + (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —David Koudys

(...) Then you'd get along famously with my friend Andrew, who appreciates Fleetwood Mac more than any other band. He always gets bummed 'cause FM get these concert tours started but before they reach any venue close to here, they split up (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Maggie Cambron

(...) My favorite Fleetwood Mac era was when Bob Welch was with them. Must have been that phase of my childhood I spent in a bit of a fog. :-) I never cared too much for Bob Welch solo or FM before or after that. But then my favorite single FM song (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —David Koudys

(...) Yeah, kinda like Roger Hodgson leaving Supertramp for me... Tho I keep seeing Roger around Toronto on various shows 'n such--did he just put up his shingle in the GTA? So there's a debate for you--people who left 'big bands' and had successful (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —John Neal

(...) lol, my dad bought a DVD player and got that DVD free with the purchase-- he gave it to me:-) (...) hehe For some reason, I never got into the Eagles-- I think maybe it was because they were *too* popular (I remember complaining that "New Kid (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —John Neal

(...) Ah, yes, I remember getting my first all-in-one stereo-- 8 track player, record player (we weren't sophisticated enough back then to call it a turntable;-) and radio. And THEN I got a cassette recorder with "Doubly"[1]! The very first song I (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) If I had to peg it, COTC is it for me, tho their "Paris" album's my favourite listen. "Bon Soir Paris!..." ('specially the bit when he (I think it was Roger) went on about what he had for (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —John Neal

(...) For me, one would have to be from Alan Parsons Project (my all-time favorite), but *which* one... Others require more thought-- you can't rush into these types of decisions-- one never knows how long one will be deserted! BTW, Dave, in this (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —David Koudys

(...) Yeah, picture a guy in a red shirt, with white hat and pants, pedalling on a bamboo bikish/generator. The professor could build a nuclear generator out of 2 coconut shells and a string but couldn't fix a 3 foot hole in a boat! (some comedy (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Ross Crawford

(...) Yeah "Turn of a Friendly Card" is up there on my list. Also like "The Seekers" but which album? Think about it later... ROSCO (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Maggie Cambron

(...) Chocolate Peanut Butter Coffee Oh, wait, those are the three foods I would want.... The trouble is, I know my favorite albums so well I can play them in my head, so it might be worth choosing something else. Course, you'd have to hope you (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —John Neal

(...) Check. (...) Check. (...) Huh? Thought that was a *beverage*. Reminds me of my college buddy who returned from a semester in England with a penchant for heavy beers-- "if you can't drink it with a fork, it's no good..." (...) Or that one (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —David Koudys

(...) What a scene--a stack of books, on the steps, he's about to sit down when *crunch!*, he steps on his glasses. Burgess Meredith, a.k.a. Mick from Rocky--'Catch the chicken, Rock!', 'I's liked ya better when you was hauling spit around...' or (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —John Neal

(...) My favorite (Rock to Mick) "Cut me, Mick!" -John (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Maggie Cambron

(...) You kidding? It's my fifth basic food group. Or now that kids learn pyramids you could say it is one of the biggest blocks in the foundation of my food pyramid! (...) :D Hell would be being stuck on the island with only ABBA's greatest hits! (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I'm a total Alan Parsons nut. If you want an album that really sticks with you, seek out the Alan Parsons Project album that isn't an APP album; it's called "Freudiana." It's still my favorite, and it was the last AP/EW collaboration. But it (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —John Neal

(...) Cool! We APP nuts are a rare breed! (...) It is an *awesome* album! I found out about it through a web site some years ago and special ordered it. What a weird deal that was. Same band members, same format, same sound, but *not* an "Alan (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Yeah. I heard the story somewhere about why it's not branded that way, but I forget--but if I go to Vienna, I will have to see it on stage. ;) I can never hear Leo Sayer the same 1970s way again. (Say, what is it with Parsons and the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Supertramp (was: Be careful ....) —John Neal

(...) Or Chris Thompson-- he sang with *everyone*! (...) On CD? Didn't know one existed... Say, have you heard "Keats"? It's okay-- another attempt to fly without Eric, although he did mastermind the project ("Keats" is the name of his favorite (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Supertramp (was supertramp... careful... whatever...) —David Koudys

(...) OMGoodnesss!!!...!!! Started off with 'School'... Ended off (in the encore) with 'Crime of the Century'.... Rick Davies played 'Downstream' with just him and a piano for the entire song... 7 member band right now, including Siebenburg's son (I (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

I'm continuting to try to focus us down on this conversation to a relatively few points since we're getting crazy in our post lengths. (...) So the short answer is "yes," right? You do agree with me. Since our senses are physical, anything that can (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Again, a finite concept--Every hair on your head is numbered, every grain of sand, every molecule, He knows--do you get the idea that He is infinite yet? If it were *our* universe, and as finite beings, sure we would have to script it, but, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

This is too long so I'm snipping at will. I have taken great pains to make sure nothing is responded too out of context. (...) What when? Accepting for the moment, that the universe is actually finite, so what? So if we manage to hang on until we (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) The quest for knowledge will just dissipate when we get there? A fundamental human significance--the pursuit of learning--will promptly poof when all that science can teach us is known? Yes it is a Good Thing (tm). I have said so before, and I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be explained by (or as Chris (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) <huge honkin' snip> I suspect that the idea Dave is trying to get across is that some people promote science and scientific thought as the be-all and end-all of possible knowledge. These people are in their way as close-minded as the extremely (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) Take your calm and polite posting elsewhere, you wet blanket! But your clarification makes sense--if that's what Dave K thinks then I'd be gratified to have it confirmed. Anyway, here's how the assertion might be phrased: Science is our most (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Yeah, this is a discussion for hotheads like me! (...) Yes, I agree. I think it sums it up good for me. (...) Really? Science can say a bunch of molecules in the brain releasing pheremones, or 'happy chemicals' is the whole justification why I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: <snip> (...) Thanks. That's *exactly* my point--they *may* exist is even better for me to accept than they *do* or *do not* exist. Dave K. (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) I don't see where James stated anything like the above interpretation of his statement. Yes, you can believe in green fairies. No, science cannot disprove the existence of the green fairies (there is a reason for that, BTW). These two things (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Quoteth James "We can certainly concieve of things that are not addressable by science; it is not such a leap of logic to conceed that they may exist. God is one such..." Things that are not addressable by science--that they may exist? Did I (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

(...) No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa. (...) I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not the purpose of scientific (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Just because you say it's a straw man, don't make it so. Quoteth Hop-Frog (...) Further quoteth (...) Not a straw man arguement--you state in the paragraph above that there will *always* be something new to study. How can you make that (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) You are exactly correct. What makes it a straw argument is the fact that you made a simplistic caricature of Richard's argument and then addressed it as though it was an accurate summation of his position. That is the very definition of a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) I thought it was an accurate summation of his position, and not a simplistic caricature at all, and I did not see any proof to the contrary, just the <delete> 'straw man arguement', and therefore my claim that 'calling it a straw man arguement (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) As I said, Richard's identification of your straw man argument doesn't make it so; your argument is a straw man because it caricatures your opponent's position and in so doing you attempt to give yourself an easier target to attack. The fact (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) K, lets look at the one quotatoin that this is directly in resonse to, and let me try to show you how I interpreted it without any straw men in sight: Quoteth Richard (I think): (...) "My (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Faith and Science (was Re: slight) —Richard Marchetti

Religious persons seem to have a need to create a false opposition between faith and science where no such opposition exists, at least not from the science side of it. To explain this problem I note the following definitions: 1) Faith can be defined (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) I'd caution that "infinite" still does not mean "comprehensive," since we could in theory study the potential spatial relationships between two particles and find an infinite number of potential combinations, and that's just two particles. And (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —James Brown

(...) I believe that this is the intellectual hubris that Dave K is refering to when he talks about elevating science to godhood. By rejecting the notion that there might be anything science cannot address, you are attributing a universality to the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Richard Marchetti

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes, or quotes: (...) I have to admit that this statement must be true. At the same time, and as someone else has pointed out, science is always refining itself and finding new frontiers. So not being (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) It was a misattirbution by Dave! It was I who remarked. Chris (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) God. And to explain that, denies Him. That's *my* faith speaking. Does that make me 'less than' you 'cause I believe and you don't? (...) In principal[sic], God's universe is being explained right now via science. So again, I have no problem (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You're thinking of the late 1920s... by 1939 the German people were pretty well off again with a fairly stable currency. Unfortunately that prosperity was built on theft via a military dictatorship that happily trampled the rights of everyone. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) And way too many people are following Dubya on, well, not exactly the same road, but a road of happily trampling the rights and freedoms of everyone. You and I are not going along willingly, but a whole bunch of folks are going along, not just (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) Then take it as established that I imply no insult by my use of the shortened form. (...) Then you're accepting that color preference is NOT outside the realm of scientific inquiry? In addition, you have yet to apply that Razor in any post (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —David Koudys

(...) Then no problem. (...) I'm saying that many aspects of colour preference is quite inside the realm of scientific inquiry, just as stydying a candle and it's many psychological and physiological impacts on a human can, and *should* be studied (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But actually, there are any number of mathematical infinities and they aren't all equally infinite. The number of real numbers between zero and one is infinite, and yet it is half that between negative one and one. An infinity can be operated (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, He already did that, if one accepts the notion of original sin. The predisposition to sin (ie, an inherent tendency toward evil) is hardly a tabula rosa for free will. If God has inflicted upon us (or allowed to be inflicted) a (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Thomas Stangl

(...) You are defining an incorrect starting point then. Who/what created the Creator? A correct starting point for the Creator view would be when/how the Creator came to be. Otherwise, you are STILL left with the question of "how did it all begin"? (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) In complement to Tom's very correct points I would add that the claim "God always existed but the universe couldn't have always existed" is the falacy of special pleading, which states "for my theory I allow extraordinary circumstances but for (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —John Neal

(...) No, you can't by definition inquire about the starting point of a starting point. (...) To what degree? A "larger" leap of faith? Nothing what we are talking about is "logical" We are talking about something out of nothing. We don't have any (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: slight —Dave Schuler

(...) There is a great reason to accept that God didn't create the universe; we have no evidence that he did. We have evidence that the universe is here, and we have evidence that it began (in its current incarnation) some 15 billion years ago. But (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

inconsequential creator —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No valid reason not to accept that the universe was created rather than always existed or spontaneously appeared... AS LONG AS that creator has had no other effect. As soon as you claim the creator has had other effects which are apparent or (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)