Whateva -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, May 13, 02:09:42am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Whateva

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01/25/11 10:53pm
In reply to: Biff 's message, "There's a first!" on 12/30/10 2:36pm

>

>
>But here's the thing, Damo (can I call you Damo?):
>Christianity does not own the monopoly on
>narrowmindedness. Every world view claims to have the
>answers. That's the underlying purpose behind world
>views, to provide answers to the "big" questions. Not
>to get personal, but I would submit that you have been
>every bit as narrow-minded as any Christian who has
>been a part of the core group of debaters here.

They attempt to answer them. Whether you think I'm narrow-minded or not doesn't much concern me--so submit away.

>
>Don't get me wrong, I loved the discussions that took
>place here. But a couple of things frustrated me to no
>end (there's the emotion again). One was the continual
>implication that the naturalist argument comes from a
>more solid premise by claiming to be the only one
>based on observable evidence. The naturalist vs.
>design argument is not one of evidence vs. lack of. It
>is of the evidence and how it is interpreted, and it
>is of how the gaps are filled in.

It depends on what you qualify as "observable evidence." If I see a magical fairy--then I'm seeing observable evidence. Of course, if I'm the only one that sees it, then what?

>
>Indeed, there will always be more questions. No world
>view can legitimately claim to have the answers to
>everything, spiritual or otherwise.

Yet above you said that is their purpose so would you go so far as to say religions LIE at their very source?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]