|
Advice on refridgeration unit please
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:42:12 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote: Herodotus wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right to harm innocents. Stephen Sounds like a 'religious' philosophy to me. Perhaps not a religion but at least a religious belief. Morality is not exclusive to religion. My morality is based upon reason, not because someone said it in a book. Religion is based upon faith. Stephen Forgive me for contradicting you but that is not true. If you do a Google on such as Averroes and (Saint) Thomas Aquinas and (Saint) Albert Magnus you will see that there was at the time, and had been for a long while, much discussion about belief by faith or by reason. Europe never developed the Japanese concept of "Mu" and thus there was a lot of conflict on the matter. At the time (12 century CE) there was much intercourse between the scholars and theologians of Islamic Spain and medieval Europe. Averroes the Moslem came up with the answer and it was included as a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine by Thomas Aquinas. That is why a Moslem philosopher/theologian is included in the painting by Raphael of "The school of Athens" that was painted on a wall of the then Pope's bedroom. I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best theological author - he was not merely a mathematician. regards Peter |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:42:12 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: Herodotus wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right to harm innocents. Stephen Sounds like a 'religious' philosophy to me. Perhaps not a religion but at least a religious belief. Morality is not exclusive to religion. My morality is based upon reason, not because someone said it in a book. Religion is based upon faith. Stephen Forgive me for contradicting you but that is not true. If you do a Google on such as Averroes and (Saint) Thomas Aquinas and (Saint) Albert Magnus you will see that there was at the time, and had been for a long while, much discussion about belief by faith or by reason. Europe never developed the Japanese concept of "Mu" and thus there was a lot of conflict on the matter. At the time (12 century CE) there was much intercourse between the scholars and theologians of Islamic Spain and medieval Europe. Averroes the Moslem came up with the answer and it was included as a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine by Thomas Aquinas. That is why a Moslem philosopher/theologian is included in the painting by Raphael of "The school of Athens" that was painted on a wall of the then Pope's bedroom. I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best theological author - he was not merely a mathematician. Pascal rightly believed that reason had no place in religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager There is insufficient evidence or argument for the existence of God and all the religions I am familiar with acknowledge this and claim that one can only come to God via faith. Stephen |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message Again, nothing new here. The economy goes up and down. We don't have socialized medicine. What's new? I can't remember it ever being any different, can you? Bush isn't to blame for any of it. Again, you don't care. Got it. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth or yours I suppose. Didn't say a word about caring or not. I said I can't remember the economy not going up and down. Can you? We've also never had more socialized medicine ever. How do you blame Bush for that? Did you change the subject because these points are obvious and you don't want to admit it? What are you blathering about? I thought you were old enough to remember that the economy goes up and down. Remember the seventies? There were way worse than now. You're old enough, you just don't want to remember, I guess. Drugs such as LSD have been known to do that The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost of the war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just about every program including Social Security and Medicare. Hilarious! So, every war in US history has boosted the economy except this one. And if there were more federal funding for Social Security, Medicare and the like, the economy would be in better shape! Wow, hard to argue with someone so far off the mark! Stephen |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... No, what I'm saying is that the economy has been going up and down for as long as I can remember and it seems there is little any president can ever do about it. I guess the president is just a figurehead with no power to affect the economy. Right. The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost of the war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just about every program including Social Security and Medicare. Hilarious! So, every war in US history has boosted the economy except this one. And if there were more federal funding for Social Security, Medicare and the like, the economy would be in better shape! Wow, hard to argue with someone so far off the mark! Huh? Where did I say that? The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost of the war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just about every program including Social Security and Medicare. What I said was that we're spending $12B a month on a war that didn't need to be fought, But wars have always boosted the US economy. Why is this one any different? Perhaps because after 9/11 Bushco told us to go shopping. $12B a month and poor people are homeless, kids don't get health insurance, vets don't get decent benefits or a "GI"-like bill, according to war hero McCain anyway. It's a pretty long list.... that we were lied to about, instead of helping people in this country. The neo-con agenda is pretty clear and self-stated. Here's a nice link for you, since you're an avowed athiest... http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=205 We should dominate any culture who seeks to prevent economic, cultural, social and religious freedoms. We should dominate them only to the extent that they can't *impose* their values on anyone. At the least, let them talk about it and promote it all they want in a free speech setting and the foolishness of their ideas will be illuminated. At the most blow them to kingdom come if they won't stop their aggression against innocents. So we should go to war against all those in power who are bad? That's a pretty long list. Why did we start with Iraq when we had bigger fish to fry? Because Watson, Bush was part of the neocon revolution. We should also fight these evil forces within our own society with similar standars, including Christians who seek to impose their stupidity (like creationism) on the rest of us. Who decides who's evil? Bush? You? I don't disagree, but I'd like to know who gets to decide. I sure don't want that responsibility. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Herodotus wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:36:36 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: A higher sort. That's rich. Someone who really doesn't care about other people, especially those who are dying. Who are you talking about? I care about people. I just don't think that stealing money by force from people and giving it to someone else is the way to solve peoples' problems. Stephen Stephen, Rosseau's statement that "all taxation is theft" and its underlying arguments does not apply in this age and has been largely discredited. If you wish to belong to a particular herd and claim protection and hearth warmth from that herd then you must pay the piper. That is why you elect the people who decide how much the membership fees are and how it is spent. Apart from any moral or empathetic reasons that come with a supposedly highly developed civilisation, to me it makes economic sense to financially try to help one's less fortunate citizens. [...] A more moral and effective way to help less fortunate citizens is with better forms of voluntary private donation. A more moral and efficient way to fund public services is with private companies competing in the marketplace to provide them instead of dumping money into government organizations with little to no accountability for how effectively they use that money. Stephen Not a chance. It doesn't work well enough without gov't guidance. The private sector is only mostly interested in the share price of their stock. You're talking about having huge fluctuations in the economy if a free-market system is left to itself. It's a Chicago School of Economics policy that started in the '50s. It doesn't work. It's very easy to claim that someone is "dumping" money, but it isn't the case. Clinton proved that when he reduced the welfare rolls while he was in office, along with putting us into positive territory with the deficit (now about $1/2 TRILLION thanks to Bush's policies). -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani said: I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right to harm innocents. Jeez, Steve, you didn't have to give up religion for that. There are plenty around that do not include a right to harm innocents in their catechism. I gave up religious theories because I think they are false. Stephen I believe in God because it's obvious when you're sailing on a beautiful day. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best theological author - he was not merely a mathematician. Pascal rightly believed that reason had no place in religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager There is insufficient evidence or argument for the existence of God and all the religions I am familiar with acknowledge this and claim that one can only come to God via faith. Stephen Not quite correct Stephen, He made no such direct statement that I can remember though I acknowledge that it is some time since I read his writings. What most people refer to is known as Pascal's Wager in which he stated that it is better to believe in a God as ""If you win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing." What he did acknowledge is that nobody can positively know for certain that there is or is not a God, therefore faith must come into play as it does with most things we do in life. This is where people assume that he meant that only by faith alone can anyone believe in a God. He has never taken that simplistic stand. He did reason that there is very little in this world that we can know for absolute certainty. Prior to DNA testing nobody could be certain who one's father was. We have to have faith that when we go to sleep at night we will awaken in the morning, that the bus will arrive and that the pilot of the plane we travel on is neither a terrorist nor a fraud who does not know how to land the thing. Personally I do not know whether there is or is not a God. I cannot even conceive of what God is if there is one. To me it is of little consequence at all but I am not an atheist. The same goes for your assertion that you are an avowed atheist and do not have any religious beliefs. Surely it follows that your adamant belief that there is no God is a religious belief in itself, regardless of what other associated concepts your Godlessness is allied with. Therefore, ipso facto, you Sir do have a religion. If you had said agnostic, it might be a little different. regards Peter |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
Herodotus wrote:
I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best theological author - he was not merely a mathematician. Pascal rightly believed that reason had no place in religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager There is insufficient evidence or argument for the existence of God and all the religions I am familiar with acknowledge this and claim that one can only come to God via faith. Stephen Not quite correct Stephen, He made no such direct statement that I can remember though I acknowledge that it is some time since I read his writings. What most people refer to is known as Pascal's Wager in which he stated that it is better to believe in a God as ""If you win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing." What he did acknowledge is that nobody can positively know for certain that there is or is not a God, therefore faith must come into play as it does with most things we do in life. This is where people assume that he meant that only by faith alone can anyone believe in a God. He has never taken that simplistic stand. He did reason that there is very little in this world that we can know for absolute certainty. Prior to DNA testing nobody could be certain who one's father was. We have to have faith that when we go to sleep at night we will awaken in the morning, that the bus will arrive and that the pilot of the plane we travel on is neither a terrorist nor a fraud who does not know how to land the thing. Personally I do not know whether there is or is not a God. I cannot even conceive of what God is if there is one. To me it is of little consequence at all but I am not an atheist. The same goes for your assertion that you are an avowed atheist and do not have any religious beliefs. Surely it follows that your adamant belief that there is no God is a religious belief in itself, regardless of what other associated concepts your Godlessness is allied with. Therefore, ipso facto, you Sir do have a religion. If you had said agnostic, it might be a little different. *All* of my best theories about the nature of the world are held tentatively, which is the best anyone can hold any theory, as you implied. I used to call myself agnostic for the very reason you state, but the truth is that my best guess on the matter is that there is no God. Since everything that I (and you) know is a best-guess, it is a non sequitur to call it all "faith." In reality everything I know, I know because it I have rejected all the alternative theories as either falsified or inferior in some manner. This system is called critical rationalism. You can find out more about it at: http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism Stephen |
Advice on refridgeration unit please
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:10:41 -0700, "Capt. JG" said: Jon's been saying the economy is in shambles constantly since 2001. Why should he change now? So, you think things are better now than in say 1998? I think you have an incredible ability to believe fairy tales. Perhaps, but you didn't answer the question I noticed. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com