To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7795
    Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal
    (...) Then WHY do atheists and agnostics try and hold religion up to the scientific method? Seems to me you can't have your cosmic cake and eat it too. Anyone stating that they need some sort of proof or evidence that God exists is inconsistent, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler
     (...) Which atheists are you referring to? Certainly not me, since I've never demanded any proof of God's existence. I *have* demanded proof of miracles such as prophecies, because these are terrestrial in effect, and therefore part of the natural (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal
      (...) Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically; I was querying the atheists in the crowd who do this:-) (...) Then you agree that it is inconsistent to do this? (...) Ah, but who does? (...) Really? But at least they are credible witnesses in the eyes (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Dave Schuler
      (...) Oh. That makes sense, then. I thought you were directing it just at me, but I see what you mean. (...) Absolutely (which I almost spelled "absoulutlely" which would have been a cool pun). That's what I've maintained all along, that science has (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl
     (...) Why it is not inconsistent for you to assume we should be forced to prove God's nonexistence in order to not belive in him? -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal
      (...) Come again? I'm saying it is inconsistent to expect proof of God's existence when that is by definition not possible. Science and religion are separate realms, so don't hold one up to the other as a test of its validity. -John (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek
     In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Don't you get it? (...) Don't you get it, man? Haven't you been listening? That's fine that they are separate realms. It's just fine and dandy. You can use whatever metrics you like for your beliefs. But (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal
      (...) It is you, sir, who hasn't been listening. (...) NEVER ASKED YOU TO BELIEVE ONCE. Go back and check. (...) Okay, here is my point (again). If I turned water in wine right in front of your eyes, what I am hearing you say is that you wouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Lindsay Frederick Braun
     (...) In a way, it's because time itself doesn't really exist "at the beginning." All the rules are off before, I believe, the first microsecond after the bang or poof or whatever-- our understanding of things Science can only take us so far, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek
     (...) Dave! already answered this quite well (thanks, Dave!) but I want to elaborate/restate a bit in hopes that if the christians understand this point they will cease and desist in their hijacking of every topic that comes along. Let us be clear (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal
       (...) Had to stick that in there, eh? For what reason would you give that the existence of God is implausible? (...) Fair enough. But if I'm asking you to consider something which by definition can't be scrutinized by the scientific method, and you (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl
       (...) You know no better than Larry. I seriously doubt God (IF he exists) tapped you on the shoulder and told you exactly what he requires. You are going by what an old BOOK says (a book that is VERY old, and conflicts internally quite a bit), a (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Critical Thinking —John Neal
       (...) I think He (Jesus) made it perfectly clear as recorded in the Gospels. (...) I never said that. It is more right for me (obviously, because otherwise I'd believe the one which I felt most valid). (...) Hmm. Works in advertising.... -John (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl
      (...) The Bible was written BY MEN. I refuse to believe that your God would have tapped people on the shoulder 2K years ago, and NO other time in history. Do you believe EVERYTHING written by men? Doubtful. So why believe something written by many (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Critical Thinking —Peter White
      (...) Every belief system is man-made, so it surprises me that the followers of any system can believe one is more valid than another. Maybe the Christian god is off setting up franchises on the other side of the universe. Weren't the gospels (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan
      (...) Larry - your vehemous defence of asking to be left alone is admirable indeed. And you are certainly correct in that you are facing the consequences of your actions - I will actually support your doing so. But I would ask you this - If you knew (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan
     (...) Larry - your vehemous defence of asking to be left alone is admirable indeed. And you are certainly correct in that you are facing the consequences of your actions - I will actually support your doing so. But I would ask you this - If you knew (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek
      (...) Vehement. So leave me alone already. This forum is not the time and not the place to prosetylise, a point you seem to be having difficulty grasping, and this thread was not started to discuss religion, so you're hijacking it. Knock it off. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Vemon (was: critical thinking) —Jon Kozan
      (...) Actually, here I was mixing vehement and vemonous. :-) (...) Odd - no one bothered you to reply, yet you did. So who's leaving who alone? I actually like talking about what interests me - I though you did too. I didn't hijack the thread (that (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Tom Stangl
      (...) And THIS is where you should have ended the reply... (...) This makes me sick to my stomach, and furious, and I'm sure there are Christians who would agree with me. Shoving YOUR religion down someone else's throat when they don't want it is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan
      (...) I merely pointed out why people do what they do. I can't believe that by sharing motivations that I'm proselytizing. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. And, I, in no way, am telling someone even "how to" be a Christian. Help me out, how (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Peter White
      (...) Maybe you should stick to hanging about school crossings or drug rehab clinics. So non-believers are comparable to the drug-addicted and the immature, that's a fairly biased analogy. What if we compared Christians to schizophrenics, who hear (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan
      (...) Simply because I draw metaphors, doesn't mean I find them comparable. Easy there. I'm drawing motivational analogies, not making comparisons. -Jon (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —David Low
     (...) If someone has a completely adequate understanding of theology, and remains agnostic or atheist, IMHO it is pointless to continually badger them about the reality of God. Ultimately belief relies on faith, an irrational attribute that should (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan
     (...) That's precisely the position I'm arguing against. Faith is not a blind irrational element. Faith is based on the seen and experienced. If I have confidence in an object - say a chair - to support my weight, I have faith in it. The faith is (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Critical Thinking —David Low
     (...) I disagree. Faith, for me, is a subjective experience that only really makes sense to the individual. An individual's faith may be based in religious tradition or a community of worship, but ultimately belief depends on the individual. Unless (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Critical Thinking —Jon Kozan
     (...) I DON'T - Don't let him force you in to his inconsistant "proof" requirements. See 7864... (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Critical Thinking —Christopher L. Weeks
     (...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existance isn't possible, because His existance isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Critical Thinking —Christopher L. Weeks
   (...) Wait! I missed this whole discussion :-) We don't all agree with Dave! I only agree that proof of God's existence isn't possible, because His existence isn't possible. I hold up all things to the scientific method because it has proven itself (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Critical Thinking —Larry Pieniazek
   (...) Well, that's an easy one. Einstein's dead, so I have to go with J2. However, were Einstein alive, I'd expect he wouldn't be 8wide infected and therefore I'd go with Einstein. <grins, ducks and runs> ++Lar (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR