Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:03:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1017 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> My point is that if the X (which really can be any group - I've just
> been picking on Christians because they are the most visible here) say
> "Our way is right, and you must not question it, just accept it." (which
> is how I read much of what has been said here), then it is
> useless/pointless to "debate" because such a statement isn't a debate.
Agreed-- once a fundamental level of subjectivity has been reached, no
further progress can be made. My only nitpick was in your saying that the
debate itself was worthless, which I would argue it isn't, since exposing
those fundamental subjectivities is of worth (to me) and there are other
potential uses of the debate. But 'proving' someone else wrong or 'proving'
yourself right is, as you correctly point out, logically impossible.
> I don't have a problem with attempted conversion so long as:
>
> - If I ask you to shut up, you do (assuming we are discussing in a place
> where it is acceptable for me to ask you to shut up - my home, work [for
> which my employer has policies, which I suspect would exist regardless
> as to whether the law required them].
Agree.
> - You don't try and use government institutions to do so (i.e. schools,
> though I would remind everyone that ultimately, government must get out
> of the school business - then we don't have to worry about the
> government teaching evolution or any other scientific theory, courts,
> etc.)
Not sure I agree in some areas... dunno... I'd like to see school teach
different forms of theories and let the children make decisions about them
impartially, but that's reaching pretty darn far. And obviously, *I'd*
prefer them to teach the scientific method, but then who am I to say they
shouldn't teach the subjectivist method instead? Not sure on this...
> - You don't expect the government to enact laws based on your point of
> view which are not supported by critical examination of a universal
> rights basis (i.e. laws generally making murder a crime are ok, even
> though the basis for them may have derrived from Christian teachings
> since I think we can all agree that there is a basic universal right to
> life which can not arbitrarily be revoked [we can argue separately about
> the death penalty]).
I think I agree. Laws 'should' be passed as they demonstrate that by
breaking them, it would be detrimental to members of that society. I think
there are some grey areas for me in this regard, though...
> I don't care what X believe, even that X might believe that I am wrong
> to hold my belief so long as they respect my belief and do not use the
> above mechanisms to "punish" me for my belief, and I in turn feel free
> to believe that X are wrong (or at least don't have the right or best
> answers).
Agree completely.
> > > I
> > > for one am not going to accept that your "morality" is right without
> > > being able to critically examine your assumptions.
>
> I'm not sure if my intent was confused. I am talking about the
> Christians assumptions, not Dave's.
As was I... I hold that you ARE able to critically examine Christian
assumptions as they have been exposed, but that you disagree with them. I do
not think that Christians have withheld their assumptions by any means such
that you would not be able to examine them.
[from earlier in the thread:]
> Well-- I think the issue isn't that YOU can't critically examine the
> assumptions... you already know them and can do so on your own. However, I
> bet you don't agree with the assumptions:
>
> A. God exists by subjective proof
> B. God is perfect by proof in His demonstration of Himself to the subject
> C. God holds Christian morality as similarly perfect (similarly proven as B.)
>
> I bet you're more inclined to debate that subjective proof is not proof at
> all per your own definitions of proof, implying a distinct definition of
> truth. Hence, you are not going to accept that their morality could be right
> at ALL because you CAN critically examine their assumptions, and have found
> them to be inaccurate.
>
> Please correct me if I've erred above--
> Christians- have I stated your assumptions and conclusions correctly?
(Steve has already answered that I have erred in some manner in the above,
but is working on a reply that I haven't seen yet)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) (URL) suspect it got lost in the Christmas/NewYear holiday rush, as there was no reply to it. It's also possibile that David no longer wishes to continue the discussion - that it's run its course. I don't mind either continuing it or dropping (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) My point is that if the X (which really can be any group - I've just been picking on Christians because they are the most visible here) say "Our way is right, and you must not question it, just accept it." (which is how I read much of what has (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
