Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 20:02:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> Jon, you missed the point. The real question here, which you didn't address,
> is "is this parody of a religion and the premises it's based upon different
> in *degree* or in *kind* than christianity"
>
> You attacked the tenets, evidence presented, etc. in detail (and quite
> effectively too), but failed to grasp that deeper meaning. Sorry if it
> wasn't clear.
>
> You also failed to grasp, or decided to reject as inconvenient, that the
> same mechanisms you employed are employed by those that argue against
> christianity.
>
> My claim, and the entire point of the exercise, is to show that Lehmanism
> (and the evidence, logical analysis, claims to faith, etc, introduced to
> support it) differs from christianity (and the evidence, logical analysis,
> claims to faith, etc, introduced to support it) only in *degree*.
>
> Both require that one accept certain kinds of evidence to validate claims of
> miracles, both require the use of "non logical reasoning", etc.
>
> Is christianity *more* valid than Lehmanism? *Yes*, because it has more
> adherents, a longer history, more testimony, etc. etc... but *No*, because
> it differs only in degree, not in kind. Both require the same thought
> processes to accept or reject, and both could be true, or false, and both
> have as much, or little, hope of verifiable effect on people. We have no
> better tools to evaluate one than we do the other, we just have more
> material to look at in one case than the other.
>
> Debating the truth or falseness of Lehmanism, which some take to be patently
> false, is just as ludicrous as debating the truth or falseness of
> christianity, which some also take to be patently false, with as little or
> as much basis for so doing.
I doubt that the discussion will ever truly end, although the thread certainly
will....
Thank-you for the perspective that you provided, as I suspect that although you
only present it in illustrative form, that it actually provides a framework for
your own perspactive regarding religion - and Christianity in particular.
I appreciate your points in attempting to draw analogy -- between historical
events and present day pseudo-events. And that is my only point in this. By
the standard you require, no historical event can be proven to have occurred,
despite witnesses, historians, and archeological evidence to support the
events.
While the "witness-a miracle" discussion is occurring yet again in another
message thread, it probably is germane here too. Even if one personally
witnesses a miracle, you would define the miracle down to a non-event. If
someone today was certifiably dead for 3 days and came back to life you could
say that it was possible, scientifically, or worse yet, staged.
If you start at a position that refuses to accept contrary evidence, you cannot
arrive at a new conclusion.
Respectfully ,
-Jon
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
231 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
|
|
|
|
