Superstition
-
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:
Several years ago my son was told off for reading Lord of the Rings in a Religious Education Class
Yes, before I sent my son to a Christian school I made clear that if he wanted to read Harry Potter, I would let him. I had a lot of questions before letting him go to a place that I was initally scared could be full of all sorts of supertitious fear.
Dalek Dave wrote:
We all know that multiverse came into existance as a result of science, not pixie interference.
God is omniscient. There's no dichotomy. The universe came to be, and exists, as a result of natural laws. I merely contend that God is behind them.
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.
-
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.
RichardM1 wrote:
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.
I've always regarded science as the process by which man comes to understand, at least in part, the things that God has done.
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[^]
See, I thought we had a decent and reasonable discussion the other day about socialism, although you bailed on it before I wanted it to end. I prefer that version of you to the one that tries to say something insulting in the hopes of getting a reaction.
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 would have categorized him as a Bible thumper, and you as the basher
Interesting, I thought bible basher was a reference to someone preaching and banging their bible on the pulpit to make a point. The other one we get here is God Botherer, someone who prays... ie bothers God.
RichardM1 wrote:
taking a cheap shot and at the village idiot
Yes that is what I meant.
RichardM1 wrote:
Or... Wait... I mean you are not a good enough village idiot to dethrone some of the others we have
Thanks but dont challenge me :)
Josh Gray wrote:
Yes that is what I meant.
*grin* bad typing day today.....
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:
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.
I've always regarded science as the process by which man comes to understand, at least in part, the things that God has done.
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.
God's majesty is displayed in Creation. Science is the study of Creation. Not in the 'Creation Science' sense. In the sense that the study of evolution is the study of the path God chose for the development of things as they are now. I agree with the 'God Gene' folks - I think at some point God mutated that gene into existence, and spiritual life was born - Adam and Eve were the first set with it turned on. YMMV :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Well that is disappointing. I'd just finished typing a reply to another of your posts but I wont bother posting it.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Interestingly seeing a person that I regard as highly intelligent being unable to see the contradiction of their own argument and accusing me of bias and not paying attention only reinforces my opinion that faith of any kind is inherently illogical and indefensible.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Yes that is what I meant.
*grin* bad typing day today.....
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.
-
God's majesty is displayed in Creation. Science is the study of Creation. Not in the 'Creation Science' sense. In the sense that the study of evolution is the study of the path God chose for the development of things as they are now. I agree with the 'God Gene' folks - I think at some point God mutated that gene into existence, and spiritual life was born - Adam and Eve were the first set with it turned on. YMMV :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Adam and Eve were the first set with it turned on.
I agree that it's plain from reading Genesis that Adam and Eve were never meant to be considered the first man and woman.
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 would have categorized him as a Bible thumper, and you as the basher
Interesting, I thought bible basher was a reference to someone preaching and banging their bible on the pulpit to make a point. The other one we get here is God Botherer, someone who prays... ie bothers God.
RichardM1 wrote:
taking a cheap shot and at the village idiot
Yes that is what I meant.
RichardM1 wrote:
Or... Wait... I mean you are not a good enough village idiot to dethrone some of the others we have
Thanks but dont challenge me :)
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Adam and Eve were the first set with it turned on.
I agree that it's plain from reading Genesis that Adam and Eve were never meant to be considered the first man and woman.
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:
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.
Well that is disappointing. I'd just finished typing a reply to another of your posts but I wont bother posting it.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Interestingly seeing a person that I regard as highly intelligent being unable to see the contradiction of their own argument and accusing me of bias and not paying attention only reinforces my opinion that faith of any kind is inherently illogical and indefensible.
Josh Gray wrote:
Interestingly seeing a person that I regard as highly intelligent being unable to see the contradiction of their own argument and accusing me of bias and not paying attention only reinforces my opinion that faith of any kind is inherently illogical and indefensible.
I'm sorry, this is not a coherent sentence. There simile you're trying to come up with is bogus for several reasons, not least the fact that this woman is making up superstition as she goes along, and I am claiming a single coherent belief in God. I admit that I can see how that may be lost on you, and that the main reason I was incredulous was the juxtaposition of such a world view with a Christian school. It's plain that you've not paid attention to things I've said in the past, from what you're saying to me now. That's not an accusation, I don't recall any rule that says all readers of this forum must study and comprehend my every word. I'm just pointing out that when you talk about fear of hell, or when you say that my beliefs are not based on evidence, that you've not noticed things I've said in the past.
Josh Gray wrote:
only reinforces my opinion that faith of any kind is inherently illogical and indefensible.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's exactly my point. You're not obtuse like Tim Craig, but it's obvious that any discussion of God goes over your head because you're determined to find any such discussion 'illogical and indefensible'. Which is why you tried to push me to defend it, when it was not what I was talking about, and why you ultimately decided that I clearly could not. Because, you've already decided it's impossible. In my experience, there's no greater zealot than an athiest. Some Christians may be just as bad, but none are worse.
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.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Interestingly seeing a person that I regard as highly intelligent being unable to see the contradiction of their own argument and accusing me of bias and not paying attention only reinforces my opinion that faith of any kind is inherently illogical and indefensible.
I'm sorry, this is not a coherent sentence. There simile you're trying to come up with is bogus for several reasons, not least the fact that this woman is making up superstition as she goes along, and I am claiming a single coherent belief in God. I admit that I can see how that may be lost on you, and that the main reason I was incredulous was the juxtaposition of such a world view with a Christian school. It's plain that you've not paid attention to things I've said in the past, from what you're saying to me now. That's not an accusation, I don't recall any rule that says all readers of this forum must study and comprehend my every word. I'm just pointing out that when you talk about fear of hell, or when you say that my beliefs are not based on evidence, that you've not noticed things I've said in the past.
Josh Gray wrote:
only reinforces my opinion that faith of any kind is inherently illogical and indefensible.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's exactly my point. You're not obtuse like Tim Craig, but it's obvious that any discussion of God goes over your head because you're determined to find any such discussion 'illogical and indefensible'. Which is why you tried to push me to defend it, when it was not what I was talking about, and why you ultimately decided that I clearly could not. Because, you've already decided it's impossible. In my experience, there's no greater zealot than an athiest. Some Christians may be just as bad, but none are worse.
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.
Well if you cant see the double standard you are applying here then my comment that the discussion was pointless was pretty bloody accurate. It's a shame, you're such a nice bloke otherwise.
Christian Graus wrote:
In my experience, there's no greater zealot than an athiest. Some Christians may be just as bad, but none are worse.
I'd like to think if you take some time to reflect on that comment once you've calmed down you'll see how ridiculous it is.
-
Well if you cant see the double standard you are applying here then my comment that the discussion was pointless was pretty bloody accurate. It's a shame, you're such a nice bloke otherwise.
Christian Graus wrote:
In my experience, there's no greater zealot than an athiest. Some Christians may be just as bad, but none are worse.
I'd like to think if you take some time to reflect on that comment once you've calmed down you'll see how ridiculous it is.
Josh Gray wrote:
Well if you cant see the double standard you are applying here then my comment that the discussion was pointless was pretty bloody accurate.
I can see how it's a double standard to you, because you see no difference between my beliefs and hers. The same as I see no difference between rugby and Aussie Rules. The differences are semantic and irrelevant to me. I'm sure it's the same for you here. However, if I wanted to discuss aussie rules or rugby, I'd find someone who I respected in general and ask their opinion on the basis that they plainly understand the game more than I've ever chosen to.
Josh Gray wrote:
I'd like to think if you take some time to reflect on that comment once you've calmed down you'll see how ridiculous it is.
Well, again, my answer is the same. I've never seen any religious person be as deliberately obtuse as Richard Dawkins has been in the documentaries I've watched of him. I didn't expect to agree with him, but I also didn't expect to feel sorry for him. What a sad little man he is. I am not saying you are the same as him ( in fact, I think I said above that you're not ), but it's a spectrum, and if it's god or no god, on both sides of the discussion are people who have no interest in discussion or rational thought because they've already written off anything the other side may have to say.
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.
-
Well if you cant see the double standard you are applying here then my comment that the discussion was pointless was pretty bloody accurate. It's a shame, you're such a nice bloke otherwise.
Christian Graus wrote:
In my experience, there's no greater zealot than an athiest. Some Christians may be just as bad, but none are worse.
I'd like to think if you take some time to reflect on that comment once you've calmed down you'll see how ridiculous it is.
Josh Gray wrote:
Christian Graus wrote: In my experience, there's no greater zealot than an athiest. Some Christians may be just as bad, but none are worse. I'd like to think if you take some time to reflect on that comment once you've calmed down you'll see how ridiculous it is.
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:
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?
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Well if you cant see the double standard you are applying here then my comment that the discussion was pointless was pretty bloody accurate.
I can see how it's a double standard to you, because you see no difference between my beliefs and hers. The same as I see no difference between rugby and Aussie Rules. The differences are semantic and irrelevant to me. I'm sure it's the same for you here. However, if I wanted to discuss aussie rules or rugby, I'd find someone who I respected in general and ask their opinion on the basis that they plainly understand the game more than I've ever chosen to.
Josh Gray wrote:
I'd like to think if you take some time to reflect on that comment once you've calmed down you'll see how ridiculous it is.
Well, again, my answer is the same. I've never seen any religious person be as deliberately obtuse as Richard Dawkins has been in the documentaries I've watched of him. I didn't expect to agree with him, but I also didn't expect to feel sorry for him. What a sad little man he is. I am not saying you are the same as him ( in fact, I think I said above that you're not ), but it's a spectrum, and if it's god or no god, on both sides of the discussion are people who have no interest in discussion or rational thought because they've already written off anything the other side may have to say.
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:
The same as I see no difference between rugby and Aussie Rules. The differences are semantic and irrelevant to me.
Oh come on... they are completely different!! For starters - in Aussie Rules you hand pass or kick the ball forwards, then kick it between some upright sticks to score... in rugby, you pass the ball BACKWARDS or you get in trouble, and place the ball over a line to score points... Oh wait... you were making a point... carry on... ;-)
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:
Didn't parents once tie their sons hands to their beds to prevent that because it was unholy?
Then why did my dad always say "Holy Shit"?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Christian Graus wrote: In my experience, there's no greater zealot than an athiest. Some Christians may be just as bad, but none are worse. I'd like to think if you take some time to reflect on that comment once you've calmed down you'll see how ridiculous it is.
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:
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
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm not even sure it's clear from the Bible that anyone goes to hell.
Oh, my. Something isn't clear in the bible? I thought everything was there, consistent, nonambiguous, and noncontradictory? :suss:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Yeah, it was a pretty interesting read!!
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!!