Premier Rock Forum

> Neither of you have answered the question why Christianity should be
> treated any differently than any other primitive belief system?

Two quick ones. First Christianity is not primitive. Second it is embraced by milliions of your fellow citizens, and we should treat each other well.

> Your arguments are based on there being a designer. What empirical
> evidence do you have of this?

Not *my* arguments. I am arguing that religion need not be irrational, is not irrational, and is misunderstood when simply dismissed as irrational.

>> Demand that issues of scientific theory be settled by
>> scientists...not politicians.

> It's a little sad that anyone should have to demand that. It would
> be nice if that could just be obvious.

Welcome to the world. I am sure there are those who find it sad that you somehow miss God's obvious presense. Not me. But some.

> I don't think there's hubris in deciding you want to decide
> what to believe based on reason.

There is hubris in thinking that reason equals science. There is hubris in thinking your notion of reason is pure reason itself. There is hubris in thinking that reason is all you need.

galanter wrote:> Neither of you have answered the question why Christianity should be
> treated any differently than any other primitive belief system?

Two quick ones. First Christianity is not primitive. Second it is embraced by milliions of your fellow citizens, and we should treat each other well.

Answer the question, give a rational answer please!

galanter wrote:Two quick ones. First Christianity is not primitive.

Uh.....

1) How exactly is Christianity not primitive? because people still practice it today, in the modern world? By that rationale, i would argue that Norse mythology is not primitive because it's followed by a few Black Metalers in Scandinavia.

If your response is to connect that to

Second it is embraced by milliions of your fellow citizens

and claim that large numbers of people agreeing on something = "we should take this seriously," well, should i list the reasons why that doesn't hold water with me?

1) The majority of people in European civilization at one time knew as a fact that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

2) Millions and millions of people have purchased Mariah Carey CDs. Strangely, i'm not compelled to cede her any respect.

DrAwkward wrote:2) Millions and millions of people have purchased Mariah Carey CDs. Strangely, i'm not compelled to cede her any respect.

She is pretty damn hot though... that counts for something.

Look, she gets bigger if you click on her!

galanter wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

galanter wrote:Demand that issues of scientific theory be settled by scientists...not politicians.

It's a little sad that anyone should have to demand that. It would be nice if that could just be obvious.

Welcome to the world. I am sure there are those who find it sad that you somehow miss God's obvious presense. Not me. But some.

And welcome to the EA Forum. FYP. I like usenet, too, but here we have this:

By the way, I think there should be a name for the line of argument that goes:
A: I think <something> is a problem.
B: Oh, A, you are so naive to think that it could ever be otherwise!
This has to be a logical fallacy of some kind.

galanter wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I don't think there's hubris in deciding you want to decide what to believe based on reason.

There is hubris in thinking that reason equals science.

Have you met anyone who thinks that? I guess you're right. What's not hubris is to think that science, done right, proceeds along rational lines.

There is hubris in thinking your notion of reason is pure reason itself.

The strawman grows. "Pure reason itself"? My notion of reason is using things that I believe I directly observe, as well as records that claim to be the observations of others that I find credible. As more of these things I think to be my observations, and more of these records that I think to be credible, support a certain idea, I find it more reasonable to hold that idea. Please point out the hubris in my approach, without using phrases like "pure reason itself", etc.

There is hubris in thinking that reason is all you need.

And grows! Who has said such a thing? Let me reiterate:

I wrote: I (and I think most others here) have no problem with the irrational. I happen to think we all get a little irrational sometimes, as we ought to, and some more than others. But for me (and most others here), when I'm choosing what to believe to be factually true, I use reason.

Gramsci wrote:She is pretty damn hot though... that counts for something.

Look!

Oh please, get some glasses, Gramsci! She's a fucking munter!

Cranius wrote:Oh please, get some glasses, Gramsci! She's a fucking munter!

Stop! You're both wrong!

Gramsci!

Look at Ms. Carey's neck! Look at it! Now: Do not look down from there. Look up. Look at everything above it. You see how you are wrong!

Cranius!

Look at Ms. Carey's neck! Look at it! Now: Do not look up from there. Look down. Look at everything below it. You see how you are wrong!

Cranius wrote:

Gramsci wrote:She is pretty damn hot though... that counts for something.

Look!

Oh please, get some glasses, Gramsci! She's a fucking munter!

If Mariah is a "munter" I'm a monkey's uncle. As hard as it might be, ignore the singing careering, just enjoy her lovely smile, honey coloured skin and body that looks like a ripe peach just about to fall of the tree.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Cranius wrote:Oh please, get some glasses, Gramsci! She's a fucking munter!

Stop! You're both wrong!

Gramsci!

Look at Ms. Carey's neck! Look at it! Now: Do not look down from there. Look up. Look at everything above it. You see how you are wrong!

Cranius!

Look at Ms. Carey's neck! Look at it! Now: Do not look up from there. Look down. Look at everything below it. You see how you are wrong!

LVP, you're a clever guy, but you need new spectacles. Her muscle tone has been photoshoped on.



She even get's it sprayed on in real life.

Sheez.

Gramsci wrote:If Mariah is a "munter" I'm a monkey's uncle.

Isn't the whole (original) point of this thread that you are a monkey's uncle? In a sense? Point Cranius.

Cranius wrote:(some hideous photograph)

Ugh. Point Cranius. 2-nil.