Superstition
-
I think you just did! ;-)
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I'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.
Tim Craig wrote:
Oh, my. Something isn't clear in the bible? I thought everything was there, consistent, nonambiguous, and noncontradictory? Suspicious
Well then. Maybe if you read it to find out what it says, as opposed to reading it to find the passages that support your world view, you might learn something.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've never seen any religious person be as deliberately obtuse as Richard Dawkins has been in the documentaries I've watched of him
Steady on, I dont use systematic anal rape of choir boys in the Catholic church as examples of Christianity to prove my points.
Like I said, I am not claiming you're at 100% Dawkins, or even terribly close. He's just an obvious example to prove my point.
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, Mr Pixie Dust Believer, I wouldn't be tossing around "ignorant" if I were you. You just don't like it because I don't defer to your delusion.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
You just don't like it because I don't defer to your delusion.
I dislike that you're a hypocrite. But, I respect your right to be, I just avoid discussing it with 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.
-
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!!
Yes, my point exactly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I'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.
LOL - see what I mean ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Like I said, I am not claiming you're at 100% Dawkins, or even terribly close. He's just an obvious example to prove my point.
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:
He's just an obvious example to prove my point.
But his existance doesn't prove your point anymore than me saying child abuse by Catholic priests is prof that religion is inherently bad. You're entitled to your point of view and I'm happy to discuss all day but when you start making value judgments by comparing the behavior of religious people to non-religious people you're only showing your own prejudice.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Oh, my. Something isn't clear in the bible? I thought everything was there, consistent, nonambiguous, and noncontradictory? Suspicious
Well then. Maybe if you read it to find out what it says, as opposed to reading it to find the passages that support your world view, you might learn something.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
. You just don't like it because I don't defer to your delusion.
Naw he just doesn't like because your acting like as asshat.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You just don't like it because I don't defer to your delusion.
I dislike that you're a hypocrite. But, I respect your right to be, I just avoid discussing it with 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.
Clearly, you don't. In as much as you never really "discuss" it. You ponificate, if you'll excuse the catholic reference, I know how you feel about them. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
He's just an obvious example to prove my point.
But his existance doesn't prove your point anymore than me saying child abuse by Catholic priests is prof that religion is inherently bad. You're entitled to your point of view and I'm happy to discuss all day but when you start making value judgments by comparing the behavior of religious people to non-religious people you're only showing your own prejudice.
Josh Gray wrote:
ut his existance doesn't prove your point
In this case, my point is that athiests can be irrational in their belief. And yes, he does prove that point.
Josh Gray wrote:
I'm happy to discuss all day but when you start making value judgments by comparing the behavior of religious people to non-religious people you're only showing your own prejudice.
The only comparison I made, was to point out the degree to which they can be found to be the same.
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.
-
Clearly, you don't. In as much as you never really "discuss" it. You ponificate, if you'll excuse the catholic reference, I know how you feel about them. :laugh:
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.
-
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.
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.
Most Atheists are far more open to being wrong than religious people, but recognise the enormity of evidence required, far more than a few vague stories written by people apparently unwilling to identify themselves.
-
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.
Most Atheists are far more open to being wrong than religious people, but recognise the enormity of evidence required, far more than a few vague stories written by people apparently unwilling to identify themselves.
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.
-
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.