Superstition
-
Josh Gray wrote:
That would be as good as any biblical evidence of God that has been presented to me.
I guess that means you've not really paid attention to the things I've said about it then.
Josh Gray wrote:
Perhaps her evidence is logical once you accept the basic premise?
Well, I'm not sure what that premise is, and I got the impression she could not rationalise it either. I doubt she'd have said her kids might get murdered, or become killers. I think it was just a vague unease not based on any specific belief of a specific consequence. Superstition as I see it, especially in a case like this, is a case of living fearful of unknown consequences, not of having a system of belief you live by. It's two different things. And, being fearful of some strange unknown is incompatible with having a system of belief that you live by, be it right or wrong.
Josh Gray wrote:
Let's be really direct, do you believe Jesus walked on water?
Yes. It is foolish for anyone to believe in God/Jesus and simultaneously rationalise explainations for the claims of the Bible that reduce Him to being just another guy, with a few good ideas, perhaps.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I guess that means you've not really paid attention to the things I've said about it then.
No that means that no one, yourself included, has presented me with evidence that would compel me to reconsider my position. For you to assume that my disbelief must be the result of not paying attention shows your own bias.
Christian Graus wrote:
Superstition as I see it, especially in a case like this, is a case of living fearful of unknown consequences
Like the fear of eternity in hell?
Christian Graus wrote:
Let's be really direct, do you believe Jesus walked on water? Yes.
Wow, based on what evidence?
-
I tried but I cant resist. Don't you believe a man walked on water, healed leapers, was born to a virgin etc?
-
So, I was at my son's school yesterday. A woman there said she had to go to the library, where they claim she had not returned a book when she did. They asked her to check if it was on the shelf. She said she refused because librarians get paid a fortune. 'Some of those people make 40 grand', she said. This is slightly less than the average wage in Australia. Then she explained how she knew she returned the book. It was about the Columbine shooting, and she won't let any books about murder be borrowed on her kids card, sit on the same shelf as her kids books, be touched by her kids or near her kids in any way ( as in, not in the car when the kids are, etc ). These people's kids are at school with my son ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Was it a book about an imaginary sky pixie? Several years ago my son was told off for reading Lord of the Rings in a Religious Education Class His asnswer was that if one was to read a load of fiction, one might as well make it an entertaining bit of fiction! We all know that multiverse came into existance as a result of science, not pixie interference.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I tried but I cant resist.
:laugh: I was waiting for someone to take that on.
Josh Gray wrote:
Don't you believe a man ... healed leapers...
Only the ones that fell down. ;)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Josh Gray wrote:
That would be as good as any biblical evidence of God that has been presented to me.
I guess that means you've not really paid attention to the things I've said about it then.
Josh Gray wrote:
Perhaps her evidence is logical once you accept the basic premise?
Well, I'm not sure what that premise is, and I got the impression she could not rationalise it either. I doubt she'd have said her kids might get murdered, or become killers. I think it was just a vague unease not based on any specific belief of a specific consequence. Superstition as I see it, especially in a case like this, is a case of living fearful of unknown consequences, not of having a system of belief you live by. It's two different things. And, being fearful of some strange unknown is incompatible with having a system of belief that you live by, be it right or wrong.
Josh Gray wrote:
Let's be really direct, do you believe Jesus walked on water?
Yes. It is foolish for anyone to believe in God/Jesus and simultaneously rationalise explainations for the claims of the Bible that reduce Him to being just another guy, with a few good ideas, perhaps.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You are completely insane if you believe in magic pixie fairy dust.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
You are completely insane if you believe in magic pixie fairy dust.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are completely insane if you believe in magic pixie fairy dust.
Ah Crap, CSS's law (whoever he agrees with looses) has been invoked.
-
Was it a book about an imaginary sky pixie? Several years ago my son was told off for reading Lord of the Rings in a Religious Education Class His asnswer was that if one was to read a load of fiction, one might as well make it an entertaining bit of fiction! We all know that multiverse came into existance as a result of science, not pixie interference.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
We all know that multiverse came into existance as a result of science
Show me the experiments that prove it. :) Have someone else duplicate your results. We have some knowledge of the values of the fundamental constants we are aware of. We don't know why they are the values they are, nor why they are constants. We don't even know why these things are the constants. We know some of the laws that use those constants. Some of them are contradictory, and we don't know why the laws hold. We don't know why the laws are. They are descriptions, no explanations. So CSS have a magic flash of pixie dust that made his universe. I have a God that made mine. What made yours? Science is a thought in the minds of something that is contained in the universe. It is not an external thing from which the universe resulted.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Granted you lose the argument (still don't believe in God?) But I give you a 5 for your grace in accepting it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Granted you lose the argument
I'd prefer to call it a discussion. Christian is one of the few bible bashers I know whom I respect enough to enter into such a discussion but it all to soon descends into pointlessness, hence my attempt to bring some humor by taking a cheap shot and the village idiot. I suspect Christian's choice not to continue is because he can also see the pointlessness and not because he feels he doesn't have a leg to stand on (which obviously he doesn't).
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Granted you lose the argument
I'd prefer to call it a discussion. Christian is one of the few bible bashers I know whom I respect enough to enter into such a discussion but it all to soon descends into pointlessness, hence my attempt to bring some humor by taking a cheap shot and the village idiot. I suspect Christian's choice not to continue is because he can also see the pointlessness and not because he feels he doesn't have a leg to stand on (which obviously he doesn't).
Josh Gray wrote:
I suspect Christian's choice not to continue is because he can also see the pointlessness and not because he feels he doesn't have a leg to stand on (which obviously he doesn't).
Or, he could be out to lunch... :rolleyes:
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I suspect Christian's choice not to continue is because he can also see the pointlessness and not because he feels he doesn't have a leg to stand on (which obviously he doesn't).
Or, he could be out to lunch... :rolleyes:
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
_Damian S_ wrote:
Or, he could be out to lunch... Roll eyes
Please, as if its not the result of my awesomedebatingskillzness
Josh Gray wrote:
awesomedebatingskillzness
Apparently he's into debating weights or something... Oh yeah, mass...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, another way to put it would be, the Bible makes specific promises, and seeing those come true, means I have a foundation for my belief. It's not random at all, in the sense that it has a common source, even if it was just superstition.
Perhaps someone she knew was murdered while holding a book about murder. That would be as good as any biblical evidence of God that has been presented to me.
Christian Graus wrote:
it works according to rules of logic, once you accept it's basic premise
Christian Graus wrote:
Just to add, I doubt she has 'evidence'
Perhaps her evidence is logical once you accept the basic premise? Can you not see the circular logic there? Let's be really direct, do you believe Jesus walked on water?
Josh Gray wrote:
Can you not see the circular logic there?
In a word, no. His beliefs are absolutely correct because he belives them and everyone else's beliefs, no matter how consistent and well founded in evidence, are not if they contradict his. :doh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
awesomedebatingskillzness
Apparently he's into debating weights or something... Oh yeah, mass...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
You are completely insane if you believe in magic pixie fairy dust.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
_Damian S_ wrote:
Apparently he's into debating weights or something... Oh yeah, mass...
Didn't parents once tie their sons hands to their beds to prevent that because it was unholy?
You're telling the story!! :laugh:
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
You're telling the story!! :laugh:
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I guess that means you've not really paid attention to the things I've said about it then.
No that means that no one, yourself included, has presented me with evidence that would compel me to reconsider my position. For you to assume that my disbelief must be the result of not paying attention shows your own bias.
Christian Graus wrote:
Superstition as I see it, especially in a case like this, is a case of living fearful of unknown consequences
Like the fear of eternity in hell?
Christian Graus wrote:
Let's be really direct, do you believe Jesus walked on water? Yes.
Wow, based on what evidence?
Josh Gray wrote:
For you to assume that my disbelief must be the result of not paying attention shows your own bias.
Well, perhaps. It's my bias that when the Bible offers tangible evidence to the individual, that that consitutes a reason to believe it. (edit to remove the double use of the word 'evidence' )
Josh Gray wrote:
Like the fear of eternity in hell?
Hmmm.... I guess you've not been watching much after all. I do not fear hell. I'm not even sure it's clear from the Bible that anyone goes to hell. That has nothing to do with my worldview or my motivation to be a Christian.
Josh Gray wrote:
Wow, based on what evidence?
Well, that's an interesting question. I plainly have no direct evidence, because I was not there. However, given that the Bible makes specific promises to the individual, which I've found to be true, my experience leads me to believe that it can be trusted. You've really sidestepped most of what I've said to focus on what you want to say. That's fine, just thought I'd point it out.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
modified on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 12:35 AM
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Granted you lose the argument
I'd prefer to call it a discussion. Christian is one of the few bible bashers I know whom I respect enough to enter into such a discussion but it all to soon descends into pointlessness, hence my attempt to bring some humor by taking a cheap shot and the village idiot. I suspect Christian's choice not to continue is because he can also see the pointlessness and not because he feels he doesn't have a leg to stand on (which obviously he doesn't).
Josh Gray wrote:
I'd prefer to call it a discussion.
It's all preference, and I have no problem going with discussion. When I was growing up, we had them around the dinner table and called them arguments. They were really exchanges of ideas, with varying levels of intensity. We yelled at each other, but my Mom was the only one getting angry. She hated yelling. :laugh:
Josh Gray wrote:
Christian is one of the few bible bashers
I would have categorized him as a Bible thumper, and you as the basher. It could be a U.S. thing, or I missed something (never happened before :rolleyes: ) taking a cheap shot and at the village idiot Is that what you meant? If you meant 'and', you don't play it well enough to fool the competition. Or... Wait... I mean you are not a good enough village idiot to dethrone some of the others we have (back handed complement)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Granted you lose the argument
I'd prefer to call it a discussion. Christian is one of the few bible bashers I know whom I respect enough to enter into such a discussion but it all to soon descends into pointlessness, hence my attempt to bring some humor by taking a cheap shot and the village idiot. I suspect Christian's choice not to continue is because he can also see the pointlessness and not because he feels he doesn't have a leg to stand on (which obviously he doesn't).
Actually, I considered leaving you a message to let you know that I was quite keen to continue the discussion, although it plainly becomes pointless when you take the tack that you have, but I had a lunch date to keep. I am just home now. I'm reading a book called the 'science of good and evil'. The current chapter asks the question, how can there be morality if we don't believe in God. I think it's a ludicrous question, as does he. I don't agree with all of his points of view, he is very much anti thiest, although he does admit that the best he can say is that science cannot answer the question of if there is a god, and that in his opinion the odds are slightly better that there is not ( as opposed to, say, Richard Dawkins style of blind and ignorant attack on all religion ). However, I'm finding it very interesting. I do feel that trying to discuss God with you is slightly more pointless than trying to discuss it with him, as it seems to me you're slightly more dogmatic, and slightly less willing to consider anything anyone says about it. I'm always happy to do the rounds tho. If nothing else, talking to you, like reading these books, makes me consider what I regard myself to believe, and the degree to which I can honestly say I can defend that belief, as opposed to hiding from criticism of it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.