Subject:
|
Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Aug 1999 21:34:48 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@SPAMCAKEnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
1261 times
|
| |
|
|
You're free to reject science, that's your choice. (and saying there are
things higher than science, is, ultimately, to reject it. When the safe
is falling down on your head, feel free to count on your faith to save
you. I think I'll step aside instead of counting on faith.)
But if I can't use a theory to predict things, can't prove it, and can't
disprove it, it has no meaning to me and no relevance to my life.
Theories are useful only *because* they predict things, not as logic
puzzles in and of themselves. What does your religion predict that
science can't explain? Science adequately explains everything that I
find to need explaining, and I don't take sucker bets (such as deciding
to blow off living this life and getting ready for an afterlife just in
case there is one).
As I've said before, I live a pretty moral life, and I explicitly choose
to take whatever punishment your god decides to dish out for not
groveling at his feet the way you do. I'm pretty sure he doesn't exist,
so it's a safe bet. And if he does, he, if he's a just god, will be
satisfied with my morality.
If he isn't a just god and decides to punish me for not groveling,
despite my righteousness, he isn't worthy of my worship anyway. I'd
rather suffer in hell, knowing the justness of my cause, than eat
ambrosia at the feet of a self aggrandizing, capricious and sadistic god
(like this one appears to be according to your own sacred texts) while
feeling like a hypocrite.
That pretty much settles it as far as I am concerned.
Feel free to continue squirming out of questions about the nature of god
and the validity of your sacred books, because the more you squirm, the
more you prove my point. But I'm done with this debate unless I just
can't resist the temptation to jump in again, as I'm not saying anything
that wasn't said before, nor are you. Still I DO like to hear myself gab
so who knows.
John Neal wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > I'll ask again. What part of the Bible is allegorical and what part is
> > literal? How is the unschooled reader to know the difference? Can't
> > really apply a reasonableness test, because almost nothing it in (even
> > the parts that I think you are claiming are essentially or completely
> > true) is amenable to reason, explanation, or the scientific method.
>
> Moot. Doesn't matter. Scholars *have* studied the Bible critically and have come
> up with many illuminating ideas, BUT it only takes you so far. How many times must
> I say that one *cannot* apply science to that which is untestable BY DEFINITION.
> And 1) to say that, because it can't be held up to the scrutiny of science, it is
> therefore invalid is a invalid premise in and of itself, and 2) to assume (and
> arrogantly to the point of humor) that science can answer all questions is invalid.
> Just because you can't explain something using science *doesn't* mean it doesn't
> exist. Doesn't mean it does either, and that's where the infamous leap of faith
> occurs. I don't *need* proof (I *can't* have proof), otherwise it wouldn't be
> FAITH.
>
> So whether or not something actually happened or not really doesn't matter one way
> or the other.
>
> -John
>
> > > This is because God's
> > > Spirit is still active today, guiding and influencing.
> >
> > Are you stating an opinion here or a verifiable fact? If the latter,
> > could you provide some proof, please?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: POV-RAY orange color
|
| (...) Moot. Doesn't matter. Scholars *have* studied the Bible critically and have come up with many illuminating ideas, BUT it only takes you so far. How many times must I say that one *cannot* apply science to that which is untestable BY (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
277 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
