Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:12:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1040 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > So Christians, rise to the challenge if you can, otherwise, agree that
> > you can not support your conclusions by using the tools of debate and
> > critical thinking. If we can not use critical thinking and debate to
> > better understand Christianity, then this debate is totally worthless.
>
> Big nitpick here. Also with Lar's reply. Your definition of worth is assumed
> to be towards finding "the correct" belief. However, I find value in other
> aspects of the debate, honestly.
You're right. When I read Frank's para, above, I did an un-shorthanding
where "worthless"=="not likely to have a clean resolution, and likely to go
on for a while" (not to be confused with my own use of worthless...)
You've explained how you are deriving worth, and that's good. It doesn't
actually require that the debate resolve, or terminate. It *does* require
that it not degenerate to repetition of the same material or dogmatism on
either side.
<snip>
I do like your theory of morality, but that's just a preference I expressed,
not an objective demonstration of validity.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Exactly. Which is one thing I'm looking for. Supportable flaws in my reasoning using reasoning, not emotion. I don't care if it's from a Christian or not. My initial post served a few functions. A. To test whether or not the Christian debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
