Superstition
-
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Clearly, you don't. In as much as you never really "discuss" it.
I have discussed it with you. Every time you jump into a debate like this, you remind me why I don't want to. I've seen replies from you on this thread that I could easily respond to, but I'm not, because I don't want to 'discuss' it with you. Life is too short.
Tim Craig wrote:
You ponificate, if you'll excuse the catholic reference, I know how you feel about them.
*grin* I have no particularly strong feelings about Catholics, and no feelings that are different to feelings I have towards any other human religions that misread and misuse the Bible and claim to follow it. I know they are mostly honest, mostly mean well, they are just mostly mistaken. I'd be happy to discuss that with any of them whom I meet, and I bear them no ill will.
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:
no feelings that are different to feelings I have towards any other human religions that misread and misuse the Bible and claim to follow it.
Right, you're the sole arbitrator of what's right and wrong in that morass called the bible. Everyone else is wrong and you call atheists closed minded. :doh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
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:
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.
There's some working going on in physics trying to determine whether these numbers, in fact, are constant. Not that they're wildly variable but whether their exact value is a local phenomena or whether they've slowly changed over time.
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?
I am aware that you never read the stories that you link to. You could at least proof read a simple four word sentence to ensure that it made sense.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
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?
I'm pretty sure that "special ed" has a different meaning in Oz than the special ed classes you attended in Ohio. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are a handicap?
I'm pretty sure that "special ed" has a different meaning in Oz than the special ed classes you attended in Ohio. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
In fairness, not really... but it can be used either way...
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!!
-
In fairness, not really... but it can be used either way...
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!!
I took it to mean that he worked in a special education centre, not that he was on the recieving end of it. I assumed special ed meant education for people who are disabled.
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.
-
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.
Tim Craig wrote:
CG isn't interested in discussing, he's into pontificating on how his way is the only way and anyone who disagrees is irrational
I think your actions and mine make clear that I'm interested in discussing and you're interested in being rude and offensive. That's why I try to avoid talking to you.
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:
no feelings that are different to feelings I have towards any other human religions that misread and misuse the Bible and claim to follow it.
Right, you're the sole arbitrator of what's right and wrong in that morass called the bible. Everyone else is wrong and you call atheists closed minded. :doh:
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.