Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:30:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1271 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> James Brown wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting
> > > everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance
> > > of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a
> > > supreme being?
> >
> > I think they're more-or-less the same. It doesn't matter if you can verify
> > something through the scientific method if you don't actually verify it.
> > You are assuming that it is so - in other words, taking it on faith.
> >
> > Hundreds of thousands of people have no knowledge of UFO's outside of
> > testimonials, but they believe in the existance of UFO's.
>
> This is taken on Faith. I believe in extra-terrestrial life. Believing that
> we are on the only life-bearing planet in the entire universe is pretty
> arrogant, I think.
>
> > Hundreds of thousands of people have no knowledge of Brazil outside of
> > testimonials, but they believe in the existance of Brazil.
>
> Ah, but this is NOT taken on Faith - this can be easily proved - simply buy a
> plane ticket and watch the ground go by during the flight ;-)
No. It *is* taken on faith. (Why are you capitalizing it?) Until and
unless I buy a plane ticket, and go there and do the experiment (visiting
Brazil), I am taking it on faith that other people's experiences of Brazil,
however well or poorly documented, are true.
If I do not actually visit Brazil myself, I take it on faith that Brazil
exists. It doesn't matter how small a leap of faith it is, it is still a
leap of faith. Or else you're defining faith differently (and IMHO, too
narrowly).
> > > a) I have Faith that such a thing is possible
> > > b) I have Faith in your testimony of your own experience
> >
> > Why, out of curiosity, does Brazil pass this test, and God fail it? At a
> > fundamental, and conceptual level, there is no difference, unless you go and
> > perform the experiment (visit Brazil) yourself.
>
> You can visit Brazil (I have a co-worker living there right now, so I trust it
> exists). And I've seen plenty of pictures.
You're choosing to trust the testimonial of your friend, and of several
photographers.
> You can't visit God physically. And I have YET to see a picture of him.
That's an assumption. Why can't you visit God physically?
<devil's advocate>
I can't visit Brazil physically. And I have YET to see a picture of it.
</devil's advocate>
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Prove you can. Supposedly you only see God when you die - that's not a physical visit. Maybe you want to say you can visit him METAphysically, but don't try to convince me that you can visit him physically. (...) Too cheap to buy a plane (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) This is taken on Faith. I believe in extra-terrestrial life. Believing that we are on the only life-bearing planet in the entire universe is pretty arrogant, I think. (...) Ah, but this is NOT taken on Faith - this can be easily proved - (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, 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
|
|
|
|
