Superstition
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are completely insane if you believe in magic pixie fairy dust.
The correct term is Magic Pixie Dust. (Fairy or Faierie is an enchanted land in stories, Pixies come from Devon and Cornwall, which are real. The dust works only for those of pure Celtic stock (Breton, Cornish or Welsh). Henize being Germanic you would be completely insane to believe in it.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
I think you should take to heart what you wrote and apply it to yourself. You're the delusional one here. Well, you and CG to give him his due.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
You're the delusional one here.
:laugh: I'm sorry, did I take something you said in not quit the way you meant it? Are you pissed off that someone is not one of your assimilated conformists? Do you think I should lose my freedom to dissent? :-O I guess I should stop. I see you take it too seriously. I would be really embarrassed if you blew an artery and bled out on your keyboard. :rose::rose:And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.:rose::rose:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
To be fair, he's responding the way he is because of a past history. Although, I must admit that it's a history mostly of him acting exactly the same as he has in this thread. The difference is now that I expect 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.
Because you act exactly the way you do. You're just used to people deferring to you and I won't. Sure, on the subject of religion, I'm made up my mind. I made it up over a half century ago and I'm not going to change. But calling yourself open minded on the topic is flying in the face of a ton of evidence to the contrary.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Right, you're the sole arbitrator of what's right and wrong in that morass called the bible.
No, God is. By definition, if I don't believe what church X believes, either they are right, or I am. I plainly believe that I am. I am also well able to discuss why I think so. It's entirely possible that in the resurrection, God will tell me the Catholics were right, in which case, I, by definition was wrong. But, only if God wrote the bible to get literate people to do the wrong thing, obviously.
Tim Craig wrote:
Everyone else is wrong and you call atheists closed minded.
You're closed minded because you're not interested in discussion, not because you think I am wrong. To think everyone is right is to assume you have no idea yourself. Being a Christian I have a belief system, right or wrong, I believe something, and my belief in X requires that I believe Y is wrong where it contradicts X.
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
God is omniscient IMNSHO. FTFY
I'm pleased that you did. All the ways in which you attack me just show you for exactly what I say you are. I take no joy in that, but it's nice when you reinforce to onlookers who is being obtuse, it means I don't feel I need to defend myself from your accusations.
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 really got the OCD thing going on this, too. Have you had that checked out. Guess it doesn't just apply to your inability to pass up a chance to try to wind up CSS. Actually, it points to your inability to refrain from replying to most posts here. :sigh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
LOL - see what I mean ?
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.
-
Hmm, I'd love to see the results of that... I've thought for a while that there was something very fundamental about the universe that we hadn't discovered yet, and that things like "string theory" and "dark matter" are just our way of fitting the facts to the laws instead of fitting the laws to the facts. String theory, general relativity, time dilation... They may be correct, but to me, they seem too convoluted... The basic laws of nature are usually pretty simple... I think there's something really fundamental that we're just missing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)I can't provide a simple reference but I'm sure I saw it referenced in a Scientific American issue sometime last year. I pretty much read it cover to cover every month but I'm behind and I just finished one from late last year. :( Knowing a bit about the equations they use and how similar they are to the engineering equations we used to "try" to solve, I wonder, too. Mostly, they make great simplifications to get a solution at all or the models are highly dependent on assumptions about initial conditions, so looking from the outside in, I have "questions" how it really works. Unfortunately, this is another case of a little bit of knowledge "might" lead one astray.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I could give you a data dump, so you can analyze it yourself. Christians call that 'testimony'.
Well see, that's what separates religion from science. With a scientific theory, a valid "data dump" can be used to duplicate an experiment and verify the theory (Or alternatively, can be used to disprove a flawed theory). With religion, all you have is hearsay and 2000-year-old literature... No evidence. But it's true... There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, since you're trying to make up rules about something that, by definition, ignores all rules. Even if a theory about it is disproved, you can just change the rules to invalidate the opposing theory.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)You've pretty much nailed it. Plus the well documented facility of the human mind to try to find patterns in everything and then assign causality even though the scientific method eventually shows there is no causality, just simple correlation and maybe a weak one at that.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
If I don't take it personal, how can we get a good flame war going? How can we get a good flame war going if I don't take it personal? [pink floyd reference] I did the same thing last week ;P I wish english had a 'das man' equivalent, other than 'you'. I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith. that does not mean that I beat facts into submission, and it has not meant that I beat the Bible into submission. They are two ways that God exposes Himself to us, and I have not found them to be contradictory. I have found them to be fuzzy,on both ends, in different places. Genesis uses how many thousands of words to describe EVERYTHING up to 4-6 k years ago. How non-allegorical can it be? And the only conflict with what I know of science, is that plants were created before it seems right. But we could learn that life started under some conditions off planet, and landed here, and it could be accurate, so I call that fuzzy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence.
I agree that there are people who do that, but there are two sides to that coin. If you have a theory, and the facts do not fit the theory, shouldn't you change the theory to match the facts? I know I'm being nice to a lot of the people you are talking about, but let me flip it around. The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses. Science changed to match Christianity. Science changed to match the facts. Science can't make up it's mind. It is all in how you spin it. I know I'm simplifying, but do you know how long my posts would be if I didn't? :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Science changed to match Christianity
Um, in a word, no. Christianity is always trying to grasp at bits of science to prove its beliefs. It cherry picks and those doing the picking generally don't have a clue about what they're trying to understand.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
And there you have the history of superstition / religion. As more things became known people needed less gods. We're so close, only got one to go!
Josh Gray wrote:
only got one to go
Only one? Maybe one primary one in the Western world. But globalization is creating new opportunies. :^)
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You're the delusional one here.
:laugh: I'm sorry, did I take something you said in not quit the way you meant it? Are you pissed off that someone is not one of your assimilated conformists? Do you think I should lose my freedom to dissent? :-O I guess I should stop. I see you take it too seriously. I would be really embarrassed if you blew an artery and bled out on your keyboard. :rose::rose:And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.:rose::rose:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I'll never be assimilated by you and your bible wankers. You and CG just can't get over it that people can live happy, productive lives and not buy into your swill.
RichardM1 wrote:
And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.
And Dawkins thinks you're a jerk, too. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I pretty much spend most of my time either alone or with people in the special ed. unit.
You are a handicap?
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 a handicap?
No, but my school has a special ed. unit and I'm friends with some of the people in there. They're very sweet, gentle people, and very genuine.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
The dust works only for those of pure Celtic stock (Breton, Cornish or Welsh).
Darn, and I'm really a Pict. :sigh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
I'll never be assimilated by you and your bible wankers. You and CG just can't get over it that people can live happy, productive lives and not buy into your swill.
RichardM1 wrote:
And remember, Jesus does love you, no matter how angry you are.
And Dawkins thinks you're a jerk, too. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
I'll never be assimilated by you and your bible wankers. You and CG just can't get over it that people can live happy, productive lives and not buy into your swill.
Wow. You did not even catch the reference to your own sig file. Or you did catch it, but could not understand how it applied? I don't know what priest did what to you, in your deep dark past, that makes you this angry. I know non-Christian people who live very happy lives, happier than mine. Clearly happier than yours. I'm happy for them. Where did anyone say being a Christian makes you happy and productive? There is no promise that being Christian will make you happy and productive. Have you been watching the 700 club, again?
Tim Craig wrote:
And Dawkins thinks you're a jerk, too.
And what Dawkins thinks affects me, either in the here-and-now, or eternity, exactly how?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
If I don't take it personal, how can we get a good flame war going? How can we get a good flame war going if I don't take it personal? [pink floyd reference] I did the same thing last week ;P I wish english had a 'das man' equivalent, other than 'you'. I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith. that does not mean that I beat facts into submission, and it has not meant that I beat the Bible into submission. They are two ways that God exposes Himself to us, and I have not found them to be contradictory. I have found them to be fuzzy,on both ends, in different places. Genesis uses how many thousands of words to describe EVERYTHING up to 4-6 k years ago. How non-allegorical can it be? And the only conflict with what I know of science, is that plants were created before it seems right. But we could learn that life started under some conditions off planet, and landed here, and it could be accurate, so I call that fuzzy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The religious crowd makes a statement, science disproves it with tangible evidence, and the religious side just tweaks their position to sidestep the new evidence.
I agree that there are people who do that, but there are two sides to that coin. If you have a theory, and the facts do not fit the theory, shouldn't you change the theory to match the facts? I know I'm being nice to a lot of the people you are talking about, but let me flip it around. The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses. Science changed to match Christianity. Science changed to match the facts. Science can't make up it's mind. It is all in how you spin it. I know I'm simplifying, but do you know how long my posts would be if I didn't? :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith.
Well, I'm right with ya, except for the "God's Creation" part... Science is the exploration, discovery, and attempt to gain understanding of the universe, regardless of how it was formed :)
RichardM1 wrote:
The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses.
Interesting... I'd never really thought about free will that way... I mean, every "decision" we make is really just a calculation based on memories and sensory inputs. If movement at the molecular level is completely deterministic, then free will really is non-existent. If it's not deterministic, then free will is just our way of explaining randomness. Of course, our decisions are based on the way our brain is wired, as the same experiences and sensory inputs would not produce the same results in different people (Different genetics)... So in essence, the actions are still "our fault," because someone else wouldn't necessarily have done the same thing. Definitely an interesting point, though... Science does kind of work the same way, adjusting theories to fit the facts. I think the real difference is in phrasing... Religion starts off by saying "The earth was created in six days. Period. That's the truth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong." Then no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, religion thinks of excuse after excuse to avoid being found in error... If science was thinking along all of those lines, it would have been "I think the earth was created in six days... Let's find some way to prove it... Hmm... Can't prove it... Ok, the earth MIGHT have been created in six days... Wait, you have something that contradicts it? Ok, guess my hypothesis was wrong." I think it's a matter of r
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The universe came to be, and exists, as a result of natural laws. I merely contend that God is behind them.
Now that's an interesting point... Let me come at this one from a different angle... We know these natural laws exist... That much is pretty much proven by science, though obviously we don't KNOW all of the laws yet (See string theory, general relativity, etc). The point is that the laws are there. Now, I don't know how much of a sci-fi reader you are, but in Fredrik Pohl's "Heechee" saga, he made a subtle but interesting point about how life exists the way it does because of certain "magic numbers," so to speak. The ratio between mass and gravitational attraction, the speed of light, and so on. If these fundamental constants were different, the universe would be a very different place. I won't go into the details, in case someone plans on reading the series, but one of the conflicts has to do with a certain entity trying to change these values to better suit them. So the reliance on these constants raises the all-too-familiar question... Why? Why are these numbers what they are? By your argument, I would assume (And correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe "god" set them that way. I would conjecture that we simply don't know, and have no way of knowing (yet?), so in this instance, attributing it to an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is just a way of filling in the blanks, not actually providing any answers. Kind of like saying "Well, we don't know what causes this, so let's just nickname it 'god' until we figure it out." Thoughts?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Have never read Pohl, but this stuff sounds like it's right out of Just Six Numbers[^] I have a copy and highly recommend the book :)
Cheers, Vikram. (Got my troika of CCCs!)
-
Is there something akin to red-baiting, but about atheists? I know this is probably a sin, not because it's fun, because I'm not really doing it with love in my heart. :-O
Opacity, the new Transparency.
People like Tim ( and Dawkins for that matter ) are fascinating in the way they use hyperbole and hysteria to 'promote reason'. It's always tempting to engage such people because of the contradictions they represent, and the obvious hypocrisy built in to their approach. However, at the core, Tim's approach is based on an arrogance and an overriding desire to make sure that he puts people down at every chance he gets, to show everyone how wise and 'right' he is. I do not claim to be perfect, but I do the best I can to avoid the temptation to be pulled in to their web. It's just not worth it in the long run. But I am not denying that it can be fun to engage someone who obviously is not presenting any sort of rational debate, while at the same time calling you irrational....
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.
-
People like Tim ( and Dawkins for that matter ) are fascinating in the way they use hyperbole and hysteria to 'promote reason'. It's always tempting to engage such people because of the contradictions they represent, and the obvious hypocrisy built in to their approach. However, at the core, Tim's approach is based on an arrogance and an overriding desire to make sure that he puts people down at every chance he gets, to show everyone how wise and 'right' he is. I do not claim to be perfect, but I do the best I can to avoid the temptation to be pulled in to their web. It's just not worth it in the long run. But I am not denying that it can be fun to engage someone who obviously is not presenting any sort of rational debate, while at the same time calling you irrational....
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.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith.
Well, I'm right with ya, except for the "God's Creation" part... Science is the exploration, discovery, and attempt to gain understanding of the universe, regardless of how it was formed :)
RichardM1 wrote:
The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses.
Interesting... I'd never really thought about free will that way... I mean, every "decision" we make is really just a calculation based on memories and sensory inputs. If movement at the molecular level is completely deterministic, then free will really is non-existent. If it's not deterministic, then free will is just our way of explaining randomness. Of course, our decisions are based on the way our brain is wired, as the same experiences and sensory inputs would not produce the same results in different people (Different genetics)... So in essence, the actions are still "our fault," because someone else wouldn't necessarily have done the same thing. Definitely an interesting point, though... Science does kind of work the same way, adjusting theories to fit the facts. I think the real difference is in phrasing... Religion starts off by saying "The earth was created in six days. Period. That's the truth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong." Then no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, religion thinks of excuse after excuse to avoid being found in error... If science was thinking along all of those lines, it would have been "I think the earth was created in six days... Let's find some way to prove it... Hmm... Can't prove it... Ok, the earth MIGHT have been created in six days... Wait, you have something that contradicts it? Ok, guess my hypothesis was wrong." I think it's a matter of r
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Religion starts off by saying "The earth was created in six days. Period. That's the truth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
Only Bible based religions believe the six era idea. Only some Christians and Jews believe six day Creation. Even some scientists are dogmatic - look at what is going on with AGC, both sides.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some people think of the bible as completely accurate
Some people say that. When you run them to ground, they will say that there is interpretation to understand parts of the Bible. Creation in 6 days. For God a day is as a thousand years. Prophetic interpretation says "week" means seven years. I believe the Bible is completely accurate, but not completely literal. The Bible is the key to understanding the Bible. It is internally consistent, so how you read it must take that consistency into account. If I don't believe it is accurate and internally consistent, then I have no basis on which to rest Christianity, as there is nothing else that is the source of Christianity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyway, late for work... Crap...
If it makes you feel any better, this was a 14 hour day, it's the shortest I've had, and it's back to work now. :sigh: Richard
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Religion starts off by saying "The earth was created in six days. Period. That's the truth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
Only Bible based religions believe the six era idea. Only some Christians and Jews believe six day Creation. Even some scientists are dogmatic - look at what is going on with AGC, both sides.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some people think of the bible as completely accurate
Some people say that. When you run them to ground, they will say that there is interpretation to understand parts of the Bible. Creation in 6 days. For God a day is as a thousand years. Prophetic interpretation says "week" means seven years. I believe the Bible is completely accurate, but not completely literal. The Bible is the key to understanding the Bible. It is internally consistent, so how you read it must take that consistency into account. If I don't believe it is accurate and internally consistent, then I have no basis on which to rest Christianity, as there is nothing else that is the source of Christianity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyway, late for work... Crap...
If it makes you feel any better, this was a 14 hour day, it's the shortest I've had, and it's back to work now. :sigh: Richard
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Only Bible based religions believe the six era idea. Only some Christians and Jews believe six day Creation. Even some scientists are dogmatic - look at what is going on with AGC, both sides.
You missed the point... The point is that religion makes a statement and says "This is the truth, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong." Science says "We think this is the truth, but feel free to try to disprove it."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)