Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 21:49:30 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@^avoidspam^uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
782 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > 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, when we all agree that that is *by definition* not possible.
>
> 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 on who is holding what up to what methods.
>
> When you (J. Random Christian) come up to me and say "I believe in God!", my
> response will be "Well, I don't have that certainty, and your god seems
> implausible
Had to stick that in there, eh? For what reason would you give that the existence
of God is implausible?
> , but that's nice, I am happy for you, everyone should have a
> hobby, now run along". Your methods of arriving at conclusions are your affair.
>
> When you come up to me and say "and so should YOU, Mr. A. G. Nostic", my
> response is going to be "prove it in a manner that I accept, or buzz off. If
> you want ME to accept something as true, I will use whatever mechanisms I
> choose to validate it. Take it or leave it." In the end, though, no harm
> done to you if I choose not to accept. I'm facing the consequences of my
> actions.
Fair enough. But if I'm asking you to consider something which by definition can't
be scrutinized by the scientific method, and you choose to scrutinize it that way
anyway, is that fair (or logical)?
> Maybe Pascal's wager is a valid bet as construed (it isn't) and I am gonna
> be sorry as I suffer at the hands of a god who isn't satisfied by internal
> goodness, he wants groveling (abasement by admitting original sin, and
> worship of a particular form).
Puh-leeze give up on your tired assertions that God requires groveling, etc. For
someone who doesn't even believe in God, you sure seem to know a lot about what God
requires/wants (which you obviously don't).
> I'll take that bet. But no harm done to me or
> you in this life because I choose not to accept your mechanisms for
> determining the truth or falsehood of your claims. And if you're right,
> you'll have the last laugh, won't you?
Last laugh? This isn't about who's right and wrong in the end-- it's about
authentic existence here and now.
> BUT... When you come up to me and everyone else and say "and so should
> EVERYONE believe (tenet X of) our religion
Never did that.
> , (which implies that stores
> should be closed on sunday, or that people should have to wear hats or
> whatever) and we are going to force the issue by putting the following laws
> into effect..." by gum, you are going to HAVE to prove it to my satisfaction
> and you no longer have a choice about methods, you will use MINE, or you are
> going to be met with armed resistance by me, if I so choose and it's
> important enough. WELL armed.
Easy there, cowboy. IF you live in a region that is predominantly populated by X
believers and they want stores shut down on Wed, then motivation is beside the
point, no? Move if you don't like it, or work to get the law changed. Run for
office. Or just accept it and relax on Wed like everyone else.
> As long as christians, jews and muslims keep to their churches, I'll keep
> out of their way. I don't even mind if they come around and politely try to
> convert me. But stay out of my house, my morality, my schools, my
> courthouses and my government when not invited.
>
> Internalise that point or get blown away. Figuratively in the realm of
> debate, economically as I choose who to patronise, democratically on
> election day at the polls, or *literally* blown away in the streets if it
> comes down to it. The way the Religious Right is going, it might. The way
> the Religious Left is going, it might, too.
>
> And THAT is why the scientific method matters in this debate. You have made
> it MY debate, not yours, because you're trying to mess up MY life, and it's
> the mechanism I choose to use.
Illogical and belligerent. The reason why you feel that all of this is a waste of
time is because you make it that way by not engaging fairly and honestly.
> > And what does it mean to all of you atheists and agnostics out there that some
> > of the brightest minds in science believe in God? Do you "know better" than
> > Einstein or Hawking? I'm not saying that you should believe *because* they
> > believe, but perhaps there is more merit to the existence of God than you
> > "thought".
>
> Again, Dave! answered this, succinctly, but if I'm not going to take the
> word of those with DDs on the nature of divinity, why would I take it from PhDs?
Because I think that you hold the two in different esteem.
> I expect Scott Arthur to be an expert in whatever subset of Civil
> Engineering (which I still don't know, but I digress...) he specialises in,
> but not in molecular electronics, and certainly not in theology.
>
> I am an expert in many things. Just ask me. Does that lend additional
> credence to Lehmanism? If so, why? If not, why not?
Maybe not, but if someone whom I admired and greatly respected asserted X, I would
certainly give their views *consideration* based on my esteem of them.
-John
>
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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)
|
198 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
|
|
|
|
