Superstition
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Most Atheists are far more open to being wrong than religious people
Perhaps. But, the ones I am more likely to run in to, are the vocal, zealot type, simply because they're the ones more likely to want to prove how right they are by 'putting me in my place'. Well, let me reword that. It's possible that you spend most of your time with athiests and have a balanced view of the range of personalities involved, as well as being sympathetic with the zealots point of view and so slow to recognise their flaws, while you have a caricatured view of Christians and other religious people based on a lack of experience. I probably know more Christians than athiests, marginally, so I'd be willing to accept that there's a degree to which the same may be true of me in reverse, at least partially.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
but recognise the enormity of evidence required, far more than a few vague stories written by people apparently unwilling to identify themselves.
Yes, I would agree that any religion based only on that sort of 'evidence' would be suspect, to say the least.
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:
It's possible that you spend most of your time with athiests and have a balanced view of the range of personalities involved
No, I pretty much spend most of my time either alone or with people in the special ed. unit.
Christian Graus wrote:
as well as being sympathetic with the zealots point of view and so slow to recognise their flaws
What flaws?
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I would agree that any religion based only on that sort of 'evidence' would be suspect, to say the least.
I'm sure you know to what I refer, and you probably also know that I don't accept "personal evidence" as real evidence. Two billion people would attest to sugar making you hyperactive, citing anecdotes and hearsay and whatever other "personal evidence", but it's not true.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It's possible that you spend most of your time with athiests and have a balanced view of the range of personalities involved
No, I pretty much spend most of my time either alone or with people in the special ed. unit.
Christian Graus wrote:
as well as being sympathetic with the zealots point of view and so slow to recognise their flaws
What flaws?
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I would agree that any religion based only on that sort of 'evidence' would be suspect, to say the least.
I'm sure you know to what I refer, and you probably also know that I don't accept "personal evidence" as real evidence. Two billion people would attest to sugar making you hyperactive, citing anecdotes and hearsay and whatever other "personal evidence", but it's not true.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I pretty much spend most of my time either alone or with people in the special ed. unit.
OK, well, then I guess you don't really have much of a basis to make that statement then.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What flaws?
The same flaws some Christian people have, being unreasonable, being unwilling to see any other point of view, being quick to use straw men to attack people. Flaws that, in general, suggest to me a desire to convince themselves that they are right, and to effectively block other points of view.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm sure you know to what I refer, and you probably also know that I don't accept "personal evidence" as real evidence
Well, you didn't really say that. Of course, given that you refuse to even consider the possibility, you'd be predisposed to not accept such a thing, and your determination to not believe in it, means that you've plainly never given it a chance, which makes it external to you and therefore ultimately unconvincing.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Two billion people would attest to sugar making you hyperactive, citing anecdotes and hearsay and whatever other "personal evidence", but it's not true.
Well, that's a pretty useless analogy. Actually, my son gets hyperactive to the point of mania when he eats all sorts of things, chocolate is the worst, but we have a long list of foods he's not allowed to eat. So, you're talking about something that is flawed on many levels, but not least the fact that different people have different reactions to the same foods. The basic issue as far as I can see is that we're raised in a world where science is the new universal religion. By that I mean, most people used to do what the priest said without understanding why, nowadays most people believe the greatly modified and simplified version of science they are told by the papers, without understanding at all how the view was formed, or what it really means. In both cases, the lay person relies on God or science to make their life better, longer, stronger. Because science cannot verify the existence of God the way we would verify the existence of, say, oxygen in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean He does not exist. It doesn't prove He does, either, but it seems to me that your core position is that because God won't play
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I pretty much spend most of my time either alone or with people in the special ed. unit.
OK, well, then I guess you don't really have much of a basis to make that statement then.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What flaws?
The same flaws some Christian people have, being unreasonable, being unwilling to see any other point of view, being quick to use straw men to attack people. Flaws that, in general, suggest to me a desire to convince themselves that they are right, and to effectively block other points of view.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm sure you know to what I refer, and you probably also know that I don't accept "personal evidence" as real evidence
Well, you didn't really say that. Of course, given that you refuse to even consider the possibility, you'd be predisposed to not accept such a thing, and your determination to not believe in it, means that you've plainly never given it a chance, which makes it external to you and therefore ultimately unconvincing.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Two billion people would attest to sugar making you hyperactive, citing anecdotes and hearsay and whatever other "personal evidence", but it's not true.
Well, that's a pretty useless analogy. Actually, my son gets hyperactive to the point of mania when he eats all sorts of things, chocolate is the worst, but we have a long list of foods he's not allowed to eat. So, you're talking about something that is flawed on many levels, but not least the fact that different people have different reactions to the same foods. The basic issue as far as I can see is that we're raised in a world where science is the new universal religion. By that I mean, most people used to do what the priest said without understanding why, nowadays most people believe the greatly modified and simplified version of science they are told by the papers, without understanding at all how the view was formed, or what it really means. In both cases, the lay person relies on God or science to make their life better, longer, stronger. Because science cannot verify the existence of God the way we would verify the existence of, say, oxygen in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean He does not exist. It doesn't prove He does, either, but it seems to me that your core position is that because God won't play
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, well, then I guess you don't really have much of a basis to make that statement then.
Sure I do.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, you didn't really say that. Of course, given that you refuse to even consider the possibility, you'd be predisposed to not accept such a thing, and your determination to not believe in it, means that you've plainly never given it a chance, which makes it external to you and therefore ultimately unconvincing.
Or maybe it's just unconvincing.
Christian Graus wrote:
Actually, my son gets hyperactive to the point of mania when he eats all sorts of things, chocolate is the worst, but we have a long list of foods he's not allowed to eat. So, you're talking about something that is flawed on many levels, but not least the fact that different people have different reactions to the same foods.
There are certain compounds that cause hyperactivity, but sugar is not one of them. This has been demonstrated quite conclusively more than once.
Christian Graus wrote:
The basic issue as far as I can see is that we're raised in a world where science is the new universal religion. By that I mean, most people used to do what the priest said without understanding why, nowadays most people believe the greatly modified and simplified version of science they are told by the papers, without understanding at all how the view was formed, or what it really means.
People trust science because it is demonstratively useful and accurate, even if the workings of their TV are a mystery to them.
Christian Graus wrote:
It doesn't prove He does, either, but it seems to me that your core position is that because God won't play by your rules, you're refusing to consider that there's even a game to start with.
My core position is that you shouldn't believe in something given no evidence.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
God is omniscient IMHO.
FTFY
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Oh, unlike how you and he are acting? Just can't stand it that someone doesn't buy the same story you do, can you?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Oh, unlike how you and he are acting?
Other then calling you an asshat for acting like one, how have I been acting like one?
Tim Craig wrote:
Just can't stand it that someone doesn't buy the same story you do, can you?
Not at all. I deal with polite atheists, poly-theists and other non-Christians on a daily basis, and get along with them fine. I'm just calling you an asshat because you are unnecessarily rude and combative and generally acting like an asshat. If you were actually putting forth any kind of argument, as opposed to just attacking people, I would not have said it. Have a nice day. Remember, Jesus loves you enough to die for you.:rose:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, well, then I guess you don't really have much of a basis to make that statement then.
Sure I do.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, you didn't really say that. Of course, given that you refuse to even consider the possibility, you'd be predisposed to not accept such a thing, and your determination to not believe in it, means that you've plainly never given it a chance, which makes it external to you and therefore ultimately unconvincing.
Or maybe it's just unconvincing.
Christian Graus wrote:
Actually, my son gets hyperactive to the point of mania when he eats all sorts of things, chocolate is the worst, but we have a long list of foods he's not allowed to eat. So, you're talking about something that is flawed on many levels, but not least the fact that different people have different reactions to the same foods.
There are certain compounds that cause hyperactivity, but sugar is not one of them. This has been demonstrated quite conclusively more than once.
Christian Graus wrote:
The basic issue as far as I can see is that we're raised in a world where science is the new universal religion. By that I mean, most people used to do what the priest said without understanding why, nowadays most people believe the greatly modified and simplified version of science they are told by the papers, without understanding at all how the view was formed, or what it really means.
People trust science because it is demonstratively useful and accurate, even if the workings of their TV are a mystery to them.
Christian Graus wrote:
It doesn't prove He does, either, but it seems to me that your core position is that because God won't play by your rules, you're refusing to consider that there's even a game to start with.
My core position is that you shouldn't believe in something given no evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sure I do.
How ? Without social interaction, your only basis for such a statement can be the media, which I assume is highly filtered to include materials designed to feed your existing bias.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Or maybe it's just unconvincing.
Perhaps it is. Either way, it's clear that you have no way of knowing.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are certain compounds that cause hyperactivity, but sugar is not one of them. This has been demonstrated quite conclusively more than once.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it's also been shown that smoking does not cause cancer.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
People trust science because it is demonstratively useful and accurate, even if the workings of their TV are a mystery to them.
They trust it *blindly*. That is my point. They trust it because they are taught to, not because they have any idea what a double blind test is, or what methods are used by science. That is the way in which it is the new religion. It's methods are obviously useful to mankind, and very different from the methods employed by religion, but to the lay person, the result is the same, by and large.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
My core position is that you shouldn't believe in something given no evidence.
No, it's not. It's apparently that you shouldn't even consider the idea of evidence for something you've chosen to not believe in.
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:
God is omniscient IMHO.
FTFY
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
Well, I am plainly stating my opinion. The point is that if there is a God, which I accept to be a point of discussion, that does not negate or oppose science.
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sure I do.
How ? Without social interaction, your only basis for such a statement can be the media, which I assume is highly filtered to include materials designed to feed your existing bias.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Or maybe it's just unconvincing.
Perhaps it is. Either way, it's clear that you have no way of knowing.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are certain compounds that cause hyperactivity, but sugar is not one of them. This has been demonstrated quite conclusively more than once.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it's also been shown that smoking does not cause cancer.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
People trust science because it is demonstratively useful and accurate, even if the workings of their TV are a mystery to them.
They trust it *blindly*. That is my point. They trust it because they are taught to, not because they have any idea what a double blind test is, or what methods are used by science. That is the way in which it is the new religion. It's methods are obviously useful to mankind, and very different from the methods employed by religion, but to the lay person, the result is the same, by and large.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
My core position is that you shouldn't believe in something given no evidence.
No, it's not. It's apparently that you shouldn't even consider the idea of evidence for something you've chosen to not believe in.
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:
How ? Without social interaction, your only basis for such a statement can be the media, which I assume is highly filtered to include materials designed to feed your existing bias.
Mostly the Internet, on websites filtered to include materials specifically against what I already believe.
Christian Graus wrote:
but it's also been shown that smoking does not cause cancer.
I highly doubt that. It was demonstrated that when children consume large quantities of sugar, they go off the rails precisely because they're expected to, by their parents or whoever, and let's face it, children rarely need an excuse to run and play like crazy.
Christian Graus wrote:
They trust it *blindly*. That is my point. They trust it because they are taught to, not because they have any idea what a double blind test is, or what methods are used by science. That is the way in which it is the new religion. It's methods are obviously useful to mankind, and very different from the methods employed by religion, but to the lay person, the result is the same, by and large.
Hmm, I don't exactly agree with you here, but that's pretty much how civilisation progresses - a person doesn't need to understand how computer hardware works to use it to solve complex maths problems. If everybody spent every waking second struggling to understand every aspect of everything they use, the world would freeze.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, it's not. It's apparently that you shouldn't even consider the idea of evidence for something you've chosen to not believe in.
Is this statement in lieu of actually presenting evidence?
-
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.
dude, 2 pages over this? The thing that gets me over this little quirk of hers is that while she refuses anything to do with murder touch, be touched or have anything to do with her kids, she has no problem with that herself. What, she's okay with being a murderer herself? Oh yea, (insert mandatory religious debate here during which I will call you a doodoo head and make all sorts of accusations and use rhetoric (trying to save time here))
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How ? Without social interaction, your only basis for such a statement can be the media, which I assume is highly filtered to include materials designed to feed your existing bias.
Mostly the Internet, on websites filtered to include materials specifically against what I already believe.
Christian Graus wrote:
but it's also been shown that smoking does not cause cancer.
I highly doubt that. It was demonstrated that when children consume large quantities of sugar, they go off the rails precisely because they're expected to, by their parents or whoever, and let's face it, children rarely need an excuse to run and play like crazy.
Christian Graus wrote:
They trust it *blindly*. That is my point. They trust it because they are taught to, not because they have any idea what a double blind test is, or what methods are used by science. That is the way in which it is the new religion. It's methods are obviously useful to mankind, and very different from the methods employed by religion, but to the lay person, the result is the same, by and large.
Hmm, I don't exactly agree with you here, but that's pretty much how civilisation progresses - a person doesn't need to understand how computer hardware works to use it to solve complex maths problems. If everybody spent every waking second struggling to understand every aspect of everything they use, the world would freeze.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, it's not. It's apparently that you shouldn't even consider the idea of evidence for something you've chosen to not believe in.
Is this statement in lieu of actually presenting evidence?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Mostly the Internet, on websites filtered to include materials specifically against what I already believe.
So, in other words, it's filtered to expose you to the most vocal and outspoken people, not a balanced mix ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I highly doubt that.
I didn't say it was valid.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It was demonstrated that when children consume large quantities of sugar, they go off the rails precisely because they're expected to, by their parents or whoever, and let's face it, children rarely need an excuse to run and play like crazy.
Well, I've heard that red cordial always does it, but not sugar. Either way, as I said, my son has reactions to food that are highly unusual, and that send him off the chart. I don't believe sugar is one of them, but it's hard to say. Artificial colors are a trigger for him, and that's apparently quite common. You'd have to give kids very selective sweets, or give them sugar by the spoon, to test for sugar without colors. I'd suggest that lollies, full of artificial colors, are how most parents come to the conclusion that sugar sets their kids off, but I'd agree that telling my son that chocolate sets him off has made it worse ( we just don't let him eat chocolate ). But, it was a very visible effect before we ever told him about it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hmm, I don't exactly agree with you here, but that's pretty much how civilisation progresses - a person doesn't need to understand how computer hardware works to use it to solve complex maths problems.
Yes, religion and science both serve the good of mankind, despite mankind just following them blindly. However, religion and Christianity are two different things in my mind. Believing in ANY God serves a greater good when it provides a framework for controlling behaviour (i.e. morality), although I'm not claiming that morality requires religion. That does not change that there is a God, the Christian one.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is this statement in lieu of actually presenting evidence?
Why would I tell you something I've discussed with you at length before, just after you told me that you'll reject it, whatever it is ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of O
-
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.
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) -
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Mostly the Internet, on websites filtered to include materials specifically against what I already believe.
So, in other words, it's filtered to expose you to the most vocal and outspoken people, not a balanced mix ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I highly doubt that.
I didn't say it was valid.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It was demonstrated that when children consume large quantities of sugar, they go off the rails precisely because they're expected to, by their parents or whoever, and let's face it, children rarely need an excuse to run and play like crazy.
Well, I've heard that red cordial always does it, but not sugar. Either way, as I said, my son has reactions to food that are highly unusual, and that send him off the chart. I don't believe sugar is one of them, but it's hard to say. Artificial colors are a trigger for him, and that's apparently quite common. You'd have to give kids very selective sweets, or give them sugar by the spoon, to test for sugar without colors. I'd suggest that lollies, full of artificial colors, are how most parents come to the conclusion that sugar sets their kids off, but I'd agree that telling my son that chocolate sets him off has made it worse ( we just don't let him eat chocolate ). But, it was a very visible effect before we ever told him about it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hmm, I don't exactly agree with you here, but that's pretty much how civilisation progresses - a person doesn't need to understand how computer hardware works to use it to solve complex maths problems.
Yes, religion and science both serve the good of mankind, despite mankind just following them blindly. However, religion and Christianity are two different things in my mind. Believing in ANY God serves a greater good when it provides a framework for controlling behaviour (i.e. morality), although I'm not claiming that morality requires religion. That does not change that there is a God, the Christian one.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is this statement in lieu of actually presenting evidence?
Why would I tell you something I've discussed with you at length before, just after you told me that you'll reject it, whatever it is ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of O
Christian Graus wrote:
So, in other words, it's filtered to expose you to the most vocal and outspoken people, not a balanced mix ?
I'm not really interested in the people, but their beliefs. On the one hand, using the Internet you can find an overwhelmingly large amount of information supporting evolution, the theories behind it, everything. On the other hand, all you can find against it are people who don't know an allele from their own arses.
Christian Graus wrote:
I didn't say it was valid.
You said that they'd "shown it", which implies validity.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I've heard that red cordial always does it, but not sugar.
Yeah, I think one of the chemicals in it was implicated.
Christian Graus wrote:
You'd have to give kids very selective sweets, or give them sugar by the spoon, to test for sugar without colors.
I think the scientists used sugar water, and water with artificial sweetener.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, it was a very visible effect before we ever told him about it.
Whatever it was, and I don't doubt that it's probably true, it wasn't the sugar. I can practically guarantee it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why would I tell you something I've discussed with you at length before, just after you told me that you'll reject it, whatever it is ?
I didn't say I'd reject it no matter what it was. :confused:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, in other words, it's filtered to expose you to the most vocal and outspoken people, not a balanced mix ?
I'm not really interested in the people, but their beliefs. On the one hand, using the Internet you can find an overwhelmingly large amount of information supporting evolution, the theories behind it, everything. On the other hand, all you can find against it are people who don't know an allele from their own arses.
Christian Graus wrote:
I didn't say it was valid.
You said that they'd "shown it", which implies validity.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I've heard that red cordial always does it, but not sugar.
Yeah, I think one of the chemicals in it was implicated.
Christian Graus wrote:
You'd have to give kids very selective sweets, or give them sugar by the spoon, to test for sugar without colors.
I think the scientists used sugar water, and water with artificial sweetener.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, it was a very visible effect before we ever told him about it.
Whatever it was, and I don't doubt that it's probably true, it wasn't the sugar. I can practically guarantee it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why would I tell you something I've discussed with you at length before, just after you told me that you'll reject it, whatever it is ?
I didn't say I'd reject it no matter what it was. :confused:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
On the one hand, using the Internet you can find an overwhelmingly large amount of information supporting evolution, the theories behind it, everything. On the other hand, all you can find against it are people who don't know an allele from their own arses.
But, again, the people posting to attack evolution are not going to be a cross section of religious people, but the ones worked up enough about it to flood internet forums with their thoughts. So, it's not at all representative for you to make any sort of generalisation.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You said that they'd "shown it", which implies validity.
I guess it does. I was meaning to say that studies have been done to 'prove' all sorts of things.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I think the scientists used sugar water, and water with artificial sweetener.
Yes, that sounds like a reasonable test of the effects of sugar.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Whatever it was, and I don't doubt that it's probably true, it wasn't the sugar. I can practically guarantee it.
Like I said, it was chocolate in that instance.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I didn't say I'd reject it no matter what it was
I've been reading a number of books by the guy who runs some magazine in the US for skeptics. He defines himself as an agnostic, his definition of which is that as he trusts science, and as science cannot answer the question of if God exists, that means that knowing if God is real is impossible. I think he's wrong, but he's right that a scientific, impartial blind test is not going to prove there is a God. You seemed to me to be saying that you regarded that any test was invalid, as no proof could exist, which means that you reject the proof I've presented to you before, and that you assume that any proof that may exist is bogus. That's how I read it, anyhow.
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, I am plainly stating my opinion. The point is that if there is a God, which I accept to be a point of discussion, that does not negate or oppose science.
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 made a statement; it was not offered as opinion. Never mind, just taking the piss a little: these pointless threads go on for ever, bit like infinite regression. You're right, I'm right; we're all right. What difference does it make? You won't change me, I won't change you. Pity we can't all just accept that and move on. My big beef is the same but opposite to yours: I want not to be told what to belive in and well meaning twats to stop knocking at my door to spread the word - I invited the last lot in, said I'd love to discuss my fondness for the occult and devil worship. They laughed. I didn't. They moved on quite quickly. Can't abide evangelism of any kind.
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
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)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So the reliance on these constants raises the all-too-familiar question... Why? Why are these numbers what they are?
It does raise that question, but the fact that it does is because of a common flaw in our way of thinking more so than anything meaningful. To crib from Douglas Adams, it's like looking at a pothole filled with water and remarking on the one in untold trillions chance that the hole would be the exact right size and shape to fit that particular puddle, like it was consciously created to have that particular puddle in it. The idea that their is no particular significance to this result as opposed to the countless others that could have been doesn't seem to be something humans like to consider.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So the reliance on these constants raises the all-too-familiar question... Why? Why are these numbers what they are?
It does raise that question, but the fact that it does is because of a common flaw in our way of thinking more so than anything meaningful. To crib from Douglas Adams, it's like looking at a pothole filled with water and remarking on the one in untold trillions chance that the hole would be the exact right size and shape to fit that particular puddle, like it was consciously created to have that particular puddle in it. The idea that their is no particular significance to this result as opposed to the countless others that could have been doesn't seem to be something humans like to consider.
I don't think the analogy quite works, in this particular case. I mean, those constants are very significant, in that even a slight tweak would drastically change how the universe developed. Sure, there would have probably been some sort of life, but it wouldn't be us. Personally, I think it was all just random chance, and I think that's the point you were trying to make as well, unless I misinterpreted. I'm interested, though, in how those on the theistic side would answer.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
I don't think the analogy quite works, in this particular case. I mean, those constants are very significant, in that even a slight tweak would drastically change how the universe developed. Sure, there would have probably been some sort of life, but it wouldn't be us. Personally, I think it was all just random chance, and I think that's the point you were trying to make as well, unless I misinterpreted. I'm interested, though, in how those on the theistic side would answer.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Personally, I think it was all just random chance, and I think that's the point you were trying to make as well, unless I misinterpreted. I'm interested, though, in how those on the theistic side would answer.
Sort of. It might be random or it might not. My point is that even if the universe was predestined to be the way it is, that in no way implies that we, either as humans or as life in general, are the reason for it. And even if there is some sort of universe creator, it seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that we would somehow be important to its plans.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Personally, I think it was all just random chance, and I think that's the point you were trying to make as well, unless I misinterpreted. I'm interested, though, in how those on the theistic side would answer.
Sort of. It might be random or it might not. My point is that even if the universe was predestined to be the way it is, that in no way implies that we, either as humans or as life in general, are the reason for it. And even if there is some sort of universe creator, it seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that we would somehow be important to its plans.
James L. Thomson wrote:
Sort of. It might be random or it might not. My point is that even if the universe was predestined to be the way it is, that in no way implies that we, either as humans or as life in general, are the reason for it. And even if there is some sort of universe creator, it seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that we would somehow be important to its plans.
100% agreed :) Say the country you live in represents the Universe, then the human race is... Well... You know those guys out in the middle of nowhere, living off the grid in a little cabin on the side of a mountain, that no one ever talks to? Well, go with one of them... The guy has a pet dog... The dog has fleas... One of those fleas has a microscopic tumor... The human race is that tumor :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Christian Graus wrote:
It's possible that you spend most of your time with athiests and have a balanced view of the range of personalities involved
No, I pretty much spend most of my time either alone or with people in the special ed. unit.
Christian Graus wrote:
as well as being sympathetic with the zealots point of view and so slow to recognise their flaws
What flaws?
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I would agree that any religion based only on that sort of 'evidence' would be suspect, to say the least.
I'm sure you know to what I refer, and you probably also know that I don't accept "personal evidence" as real evidence. Two billion people would attest to sugar making you hyperactive, citing anecdotes and hearsay and whatever other "personal evidence", but it's not true.
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[^]
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Oh, unlike how you and he are acting?
Other then calling you an asshat for acting like one, how have I been acting like one?
Tim Craig wrote:
Just can't stand it that someone doesn't buy the same story you do, can you?
Not at all. I deal with polite atheists, poly-theists and other non-Christians on a daily basis, and get along with them fine. I'm just calling you an asshat because you are unnecessarily rude and combative and generally acting like an asshat. If you were actually putting forth any kind of argument, as opposed to just attacking people, I would not have said it. Have a nice day. Remember, Jesus loves you enough to die for you.:rose:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
When someone starts a thead here belitting someone for having crazy beliefs when they live in a glass house shows they deserve to be hoisted on their own petard. CG isn't interested in discussing, he's into pontificating on how his way is the only way and anyone who disagrees is irrational. Get over it.
RichardM1 wrote:
Jesus loves you enough to die for you.
Too bad the Romans made a martyr of him. Otherwise, he'd just be another religious nut case with barely a footnote in history.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.