Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:47:27 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.stopspammersCOM
|
Viewed:
|
1488 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> >
> > James Brown wrote:
> >
> > > You don't know there isn't a god. You *believe* there isn't a god.
> >
> > And I don't know that monkeys aren't about to fly out of my butt either.
> > But all the objective rational evidence, that is, stuff that can be used
> > to make meaningful predictions, stuff that can be measured and tested,
> > points against it.
>
> There was a time in human history when all the objective rational evidence
> pointed against the earth being round.
Cite, please. The rational evidence pointed FOR it being round, it was
the christian church that was suppressing it to enforce a flat earth,
terracentric viewpoint, as I recall. As far back as we can go in
history, we have evidence that people had decided the earth was round
and were engaged in trying to determine diameter. Fairly successfully
too, as I recall.
> Your point? Nothing in the current
> body of knowledge (from a scientific point of view) can either prove or
> disprove the existance of God or god or gods. He was claiming knowledge
> without factual evidence - the very same thing he was decrying.
If all phenomena can be satisfactorily explained without a particlar
mechanism, that mechanism isn't needed. It is on the asserter to prove
the existence of the mechanism, not those who are happily predicting
events away to disprove it. The onus is on you, if you can't prove the
existence, you're wrong, not on me if I can't disprove it. Your job is
to find some objective phenomena that can't be explained without
positing an omnipotent being. Some verifiable objective phenomena. Else
you are just indulging in (pleasurable to you, and that's fine) mental
masturbation.
And if you say that your god doesn't affect the material world in ways
that can be measured or proven he might as well not exist because he has
no effect whatever on me, nor shall he.
> > Your god isn't needed to explain the universe satisfactorily and he
> > isn't needed to construct a moral and just society. So what IS he needed
> > for?
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
See above. Occam's razor and all that.
> > He IS needed by a number of bigots and intolerants (hello to my friends
> > at Bob Jones University) as justification for perfidity.
> >
> > Christianity as a whole can't be measured by those bigots and those
> > bigots alone. But when a system or moral seems to consistenty produce
> > flawed people who wreak havoc, perhaps we have to ask if that system
> > itself is flawed.
>
> c/Christianity/America
> c/Christianity/Atheism
> c/Christianity/Capitolism
Go ahead and try to prove that America/Atheism/Capitalism (I shan't
defend Capitol-ism as I think there isn't much good coming from the US
Capitol these days :-) ) consistently produces flawed people. *Produces*
mind you, not just suffers to exist. My assertion, now that you've
pushed me into making it instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, is that
christianity is indeed a system that produces flawed people,
consistently, because to practice it is to be morally flawed.
That's right, it's actively bad for people to be christian and the more
christian they are, the worse off they are. Further, it's actively bad
for a society to be influenced by christianity and the more influenced
it is, the worse off it is. IMHO.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) I love this one! The Earth isn't round (it's not even perfectly elliptical), and it isn't flat either. But it then again it *is* flat (if you live your whole life in in the plains of Nebraska) and it *is* round (if you live your whole life on (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38C9898F.27C595B8@v...er.net>... (...) I guess it really depends on one's definition of Christian. By my definition of Christian, I see people who were quite devout who have done good for the world, and continue to (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Ok, did some digging of my own, and find myself hoist on a petard, presumably my own. My example died, but the point is still extant. Simply because science (objective rational evidence) does not provide for somethings existance does not mean (...) (24 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) There was a time in human history when all the objective rational evidence pointed against the earth being round. Your point? Nothing in the current body of knowledge (from a scientific point of view) can either prove or disprove the existance (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
