[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