Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:16:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
833 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
Don't you get it?
> 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.
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 when you come round and
ask me to believe, I politely decline unless you use metrics of my choosing.
And when you come round and *demand* that I believe (and there are laws
influenced by believers a lot worse than wednesday closings) I shoot back.
Now shut up about it, unless you're in a thread that specifically started as
a religious one.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
