Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:35:14 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest{antispam}.net
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" wrote:
> John Neal wrote:
>
> > > 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).
>
> 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.
I think He (Jesus) made it perfectly clear as recorded in the Gospels.
> You are going by what an old BOOK says
> (a book that is VERY old, and conflicts internally quite a bit), a book written by
> fallible people.
>
> > > 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.
>
> "Authentic existence"? What makes YOUR idea of "authentic existence" any more right
> than any other religion? How Proud of you to assume that YOUR religion is THE one that
> is correct.
I never said that. It is more right for me (obviously, because otherwise I'd believe the
one which I felt most valid).
> > > 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.
>
> Maybe in matters of science or the Real World, but certainly not religion.
>
> > 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.
>
> Pshht, not me, if they were talking outside of their field. I'm not going to give more
> consideration to a plumber about the workings of an ICE simply because I have high
> esteem for him as a plumber.
Hmm. Works in advertising....
-John
>
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
