Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:35:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
832 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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, 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.
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 a friend was taking drugs, and you knew that it would eventually
destroy and kill them - would you try and stop them? WOuld you get them help?
Even if they just wanted to be left alone with their drugs? And just said
"In the end, though, no harm done to you if I choose not to accept (your
help) I'm facing the consequences of my actions. "
Worse still - what if you saw a small child enter a busy street and say to you,
"I'm just fine" "Leave me alone" "I deny the existance of those cars and you
can't prove to me that they exist"... Would you ? Could you, do nothing?
Those of us who accept God, also recognize that me force you to accept
anything, but rather, will engage in discussions to attempt to explore your
positions with you, and too - help you see the cars that we see.
> 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).
God doesn't want grovelling - He loves you. I only hope and pray you haven't
lost sight of what that means.
> 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?
But laughing isn't really the point - despite Bill's occasional laughing
rants... I'm sure that most who claim to be Christians aren't motivated by
wanting to laugh - just the opposite - they don't want to weep for you, and so
they reach out to your postings as best they know how.
> BUT... When you come up to me and everyone else and say "and so should
> EVERYONE believe (tenet X of) our religion, (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.
It's true - and other posts admit - that radicalism is not a virtue of any
religion. Laws, however, are, at least in our society, a reflection of the
norms of society. In a democracy they are subject to change by the majority.
If you disagree with them you are welcome to voice your opinion and attempt to
change them. If you are out-voiced you either keep trying, giveup, or move
out of the country. That's true of me and you. At least our form of government
- constitutional representative democracy - is tough to change laws once in
effect which slows the winds of change which can sweep a society.
> 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.
That's pretty silly, now isn't it?
You don't ask the government to stay out of your house, do you?
If someonw runs their car into a church when I'm inside, I expect the
government to enfore laws against personal and property damages - even if
they're a church member - I don't say - "Government - you can't do that - It
was on chrch property" Similar too if a religion is carrying out human
sacrifices - I epect the government to stop it - even if they say it's
religion. In reality all of soceity effect all the other parts - the religion
of the day can influence the members of a society to act in normative ways or
not. Actually it serves to at least lengthen lifespans and control subversive
behavior - that is proven out in many studies.
> 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.
You describe a society to without freedom of religion - but free of religion-
you should re-read the laws and founding documents of the country you live in.
> 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.
>
> > 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?
>
> 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?
Avoiding the question again... LAR - you continue to use sarcasm as a means to
avoid the issue - I'm suprrised at you.
-Jon
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
