Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

lynx wrote:
> 
> Sean McHugh wrote:
> 
> Sean.. maybe you posted this without proof reading it?


I saw a missing word which was my typo. In your reply I also saw a
string of missing words from the middle of a paragraph. But those
words appear in my post. Was there something else I missed? 

> > lynx wrote:
> >
> >> Barry OGrady wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:50:59 +1000, **Rowland Croucher**
<rccroucher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sean McHugh wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>> <>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> If Creation 'Science' is to be taught at all, let it be where it
> >>>>> belongs, in the religion class.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not in my religion class...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Your religion class has been modified to make it PC.
> >>> You are no more a Christian than Mark T.
> >>> You are a user.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Sean McHugh
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Sean: can I put the gist of your post here on our website - with or
> >>>> without your name? If with your name, with a link to your current
online
> >>>> debate (I've mislaid that link and appreciate a reminder. Thanks).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Don't do it Sean. You don't want to be associated with Rowland's
> >>> Usury.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I second that. It may bring you glory, but I would think less of you
for
> >> sup****ting his website.
> >>
> >
> > I don't see it. I think, the amongst the thousands of articles, few
> > will read it and fewer will remember who wrote it. I expect that even
> > I ever come across it, it will be by accident.
> >
> > I don't see myself as sup****ting Rowland's website. However that lack
> > of sup****t [isn't] something determined; it's simply not an issue. 
> > If I write a sceptical post and the Billy Graham wishes to quote 
> > it, that is fine, as long as he doesn't misrepresent it. Then it 
> > becomes an entirely different matter. As it happens, the topic in 
> > the post that Rowland wanted, is something with which we both agree 
> > - you and Barry too, I expect. I would be surprised if Rowland agrees 
> > with my views on the Resurrection, but if he wants to have a link to 
> > my recent debate on that, that too is fine.
> >
> > I don't share your disdain for Rowland. Sure, we have had our
> > differences but when I was Melbourne he met with me twice for dinner -
> > with others as well. I wonder if Ath would have if I had been working
> > in Brisbane instead. Perhaps. Anyway, I found Rowland to be a
> > straightforward and a gentleman. You said in another post:
> >
> > ~ Of course Rowland wants your debate on his website. He wants
> > ~ anything to promote atheism and destroy christian faith.
> >
> 
> Well I do tend to express myself rather in the extreme..
> 
> > Now let's imagine two possibilities. First let us imagine that you are
> > simply wrong. If that's the case, your appeal is founded on a false
> > premise. There we need go no further.
> >
> > Next let's assume you are correct and Rowland is trying to promote
> > atheism. Well that would be no skin off my nose, so why would I be
> > resistive? I recall a man from the Second World War who said if the
> > Japanese wanted to die for the Emperor, he was happy to oblige. I
> > understood him.
> >
> > To be honest, my problem is that you and Barry have such a [problem
> > with Rowland's distance from fundamentalism]. If Ath or Chuck were
> > writing your objections, I could understand that. I do find some of
> > Rowland's positions to be quite curious, but not as curious as yours
> > or Barry's.
> >
> 
> Without getting too much into this, I suspect Barry sees it as I do.. a
> misrepresentation of his position and a betrayal of trust. Like it or
> not the Christian faith is founded on fundamental beliefs. When do you
> ever see Rowland defending them?

As an atheist, I don't see myself as a Christianity's inspector,
making sure all Christians are either conforming or are being
persecuted for their remiss. My humble defence is that I have better
things to do.

> > I tried here to be candid without being critical or confrontational. I
> > hope I succeeded.
> >
> >
> 
> I believe you have. Let me attempt to enlighten you somewhat. I concede
> that everyone sees things 'their own way' or from different
> perspectives, and I'm not suggesting that you're 'wrong' to put your
> (atheist) publications on a christian website, and I understand 'where
> you're coming from' in saying that it's sup****ting atheism anyway, so
> what's it matter, but it's not something I would do simply as a matter
> of principle. I just wouldn't want the association. In fact I have
> requested that none of my posts appear there, and I don't even have the
> strong theological position that you do. Some ppl have said that I tend
> to see things as 'black or white' and that may be so. I guess I'm just
> not comfortable with shades of grey. I think when ppl think in terms of
> grey it's very easy to darken the shades without even noticing it. There
> are countless examples of this. Womens clothing for example. Early
> 1900's saw womens ankles exposed. So then we said, if the ankle, why not
> the calf? then if the calf why not the whole leg? then we had the three
> piece, which became the two piece, and the two piece became the bikini,
> and the bikini the string bikini. (see link) Without any principle on
> which to base decisions, we have difficulty in deciding. The fact that
> Rowland's website it ostensibly christian, and the nature of it, is for
> me the factor that determines my association with it. Hope that helps,
> 
> (don't clik if ****ity offends)
http://pedronet.info/pics/string_bikinis.jpg


I'm guessing that your position is one of holding some things sacred.
I understand that. However, because I don't believe in Christianity at
all, for me it can't be sacred. That's why I can't see how someone
could be sceptical yet demand that Hell (a Rowland versus
fundamentalism issue in another strand/thread) be held sacred. To me
Hell's absurdity is only exceeded by its obscenity and associated
pomposity. If you're right and Rowland doesn't afford it credibility,
then I consider that a plus for him. 



Best Regards,



Sean McHugh