[PLUG-TALK] Michael, On the subject of God.

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Fri Nov 14 19:15:07 UTC 2003


* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-11-14 11:10]:

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on Jeme. 

> 
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 10:13, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > > And if he knows which one you will choose, you've just given up free
> > > will. It also precludes "multiple possibilities".
> > Now your just acting like Jeme.
> 
> Oh, fuck no.  Leave me out of this.
> 
> It's hard enough to just sit by and watch two dim, irrational people argue
> a stupid, unknowable, hypothetical point without one telling the other
> they are acting like you.
> 
> Just to throw in my worthless two cents on this here worthless discussion,
> I'll go ahead and say that Michael's got the right idea and Russ is as
> narrow-minded as ever, here.  While I personally think the nature (and,
> indeed, existence) of anything supernatural is beyond the ken of the
> natural by definition, I think it's possible to define a super-being as
> being outside time and, hence, omniscient without diminishing the concept
> of free will.
> 
> [Furthermore, I'd add that natural science alone destroys the concept of
> free will all by itself.  No reason to turn to the supernatural when the
> natural solution is right there.]
> 
> On the more interesting discussion -- though equally botched by Russ and
> rightfully ignored by Michael who had a competent advocate, Paul nailed
> the church/state argument on the head.  People are going to use their
> religious beliefs in guiding their morals and their morals in guiding
> their manipulation of the state as a coercive force.
> 
> I _think_ the point Russ is trying to make (to be very charitable and give
> lots of credit where it might not be due) is that a person SHOULD (as a
> matter of personal ethics, not of law) be able to distinguish between the
> concepts of right and wrong that are required to maintain a civil and
> productive society and the ideas of right and wrong that are arbitrary
> impositions of their personal religious beliefs.  I mean to say that a
> person should think about whether the law they propose or support is based
> on ideas not present in the natural world.  I'm attempting to articulate
> the ideas of someone else here, so I could be way off-base.
> 
> J.
> -- 
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme at brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Random thought #20 (Collect all 22)
"The only secure computer is one that's unplugged, locked in a safe, and buried 20 feet under the ground in a secret location... and I'm not even too sure about that one" - Dennis Hugs, FBI




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list