Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:56:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1764 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> James Brown wrote:
> > 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.
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 it doesn't exist. Is light a wave or a particle? What would the
answer be 100 years ago? 200?
Science is evolving, and the body of scientific knowledge is increasing, but it
can still be delimited more by what it doesn't reveal than by what it does
reveal.
> > 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.
Where exactly did I start trying to prove anything? All I have said is that
lack of evidence does not necessarily indicate non-existance. Occam's razor
notwithstanding.
Maybe it'll help, and get less of a knee-jerk "religion is evil"
response if I take God out of the sentence:
Lacking evidence either way, claiming to know X doesn't exist is as false as
claiming X does exist.
> > >
> > > 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.
The incidence of violent crime in America, over the past 200 years. Or is that
"suffered to exist"?
(whoops! CapitAlism!)
> 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.
If you insist. I disagree, but that's obvious by now. I think you've got a
very flawed idea of christianity, though. What criteria are you using to
define christian?
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
I'm getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com
Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) Also agreed. But in order for X to actually matter, X has to have some effect on reality, or it's just ornamentation on a perfectly valid theory that explains things without X. In this case, the christian god has no effect (in (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
