Subject:
|
Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:30:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1303 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <37BF1B78.C2E77093@voyager.net>...
> 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.
Your not the only one. Well said!
--
Have fun!
John
AUCTION Page (More soon!)
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/2-many-toys/
TRADE Page http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+DU--#+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
