God's choice: quick question for Christians

[torridon]

torridon

Yes, that was better. thank  you. It looked like basic numbers on the left, and fancy greek notation etc on the right?!

It's a metaphor; the point of it is to illustrate, with delicious dryness, the banal irony of people factoring in supernatural beliefs into our modern world which in other respects is founded upon reason, detail and precision.

[torridon]

Pardoning you. You choose not to accept that is your right. But it is also your own fault just as your sin is.
He didn't discriminate he made it the same for everyone as you are no different when it comes to sin.
You refusing the free pass is not discrimination it is you choosing.
Jesus did. King David and King Solomon did. Abraham and Isaac did and even Jacob and Moses.
This is your time and what you elieve decides what happens.
It is a choice and usually circumstances can change things. But the heart is what decides doesn't it. Those whose heart is centred on God don't change. Look at Job.

Really Sass, this is such bullshit.  You think people don't change because you read something about Job.  Get real. We all change; all the time, even from moment to moment we change, we are changed by our interaction with the wider world. We learn and we grow, we do not stay the same.  This is really basic.

[Alan Burns]

It's a metaphor; the point of it is to illustrate, with delicious dryness, the banal irony of people factoring in supernatural beliefs into our modern world which in other respects is founded upon reason, detail and precision.

Such precision, detail and human reasoning as to deny that any human has the freedom to do what they perceive they are actually doing.

[SusanDoris]

It's weird innit - presumably Sword thinks he has some kind of reason or logic to distinguish his religious beliefs from just guessing, yet as soon as he invokes "reason" and "logic" (albeit incompetently) he invokes naturalist phenomena to validate his non-naturalistic conjectures.

It's all unmitigated nonsense, but for some reason he finds it comforting I guess.

Have you tried googling his name?!!! A whole set of links comes up- Whether he started it or not, I did not bother to read enough to find out.

[torridon]

Such precision, detail and human reasoning as to deny that any human has the freedom to do what they perceive they are actually doing.

The fruits of research very often reveal things that run counter to our intuitions.  In fact that is probably the norm, otherwise what is the point of doing research if not to discover how things actually are as opposed to merely how they seem. To engage with and to try to understand challenging findings is an honest response to it; to bury one's head in sands of denial hoping it will go away is not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The fruits of research very often reveal things that run counter to our intuitions.  In fact that is probably the norm, otherwise what is the point of doing research if not to discover how things actually are as opposed to merely how they seem. To engage with and to try to understand challenging findings is an honest response to it; to bury one's head in sands of denial hoping it will go away is not.

Do you know i'm wondering how the mainly theoretical approach of many of the antitheistic scientists falls in with the spirit of your post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you know i'm wondering how the mainly theoretical approach of many of the antitheistic scientists falls in with the spirit of your post.

Who would those "antitheistic scientists" be, and what in their practice of science do you think to be antitheistic in any case? You've already had your "science promotes atheism" daftness falsified, so what does that leave you other than some misplaced paranoia?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#380

Do you know i'm wondering how the mainly theoretical approach of many of the antitheistic scientists falls in with the spirit of your post.

When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation. Dare I mention faulty worldview ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation.

Counter-intuitive explanations are fine - they happen al the time. Your problem though is to demonstrate that something is an explanation in the first place.

Dare I mention faulty worldview ?

Only if you want to make a fool of yourself with it again. It's your choice.

[Gordon]

#380

When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation.

That rather depends on what you have in mind: however, you seem to suggest an 'explanation' that 'contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet)' - so an example would be what, counter-intuitive or otherwise, and on what basis is it explanatory? I suspect you're confused again.

Dare I mention faulty worldview ?

I wouldn't if I were you (its nonsense you see, but we've told you that numerous times already).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Who would those "antitheistic scientists" be, and what in their practice of science do you think to be antitheistic in any case? You've already had your "science promotes atheism" daftness falsified, so what does that leave you other than some misplaced paranoia?

No science doesn't promote atheism.
I'd hoped a scientist might answer this but in this case it looks as if you WON'T do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No science doesn't promote atheism.

Well that's a reversal from your previous effort but I'm glad you got there in the end. Now, about these "antitheistic scientists" of yours...

I'd hoped a scientist might answer this but in this case it looks as if you WON'T do.

Answer what? No-one is suggesting that explanations aren't something counter-intuitive - often they are. All that's being said is that, just because something is counter-intuitive, that doesn't make it an explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well that's a reversal from your previous effort but I'm glad you got there in the end. Now, about these "antitheistic scientists" of yours...

No, it isn't.......... to recap Jack Knave said the level of theism was falling because of science. I said it wasn't. You seemed to agree with me and then qualified it by a swerve to talk about the unintended consequences of science. It seemed as if you were trying to find a way to not support me or Jack which is unusual since even I find myself agreeing with somebody.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, it isn't..........

Yes it is, You told us that science promotes atheism, and then fell into your standard paranoid delusion about the "antitheistic scientists" who are doing it.

...to recap Jack Knave said the level of theism was falling because of science. I said it wasn't. You seemed to agree with me and then qualified it by a swerve to talk about the unintended consequences of science. It seemed as if you were trying to find a way to not support me or Jack which is unusual since even I find myself agreeing with somebody.

Nope. I merely observed that, IF there are fewer theists than would otherwise have been the case because of the findings of science then that would be an unintended consequence of science. You then went completely tonto by telling us that science doesn't have unintended consequences.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes it is, You told us that science promotes atheism, and then fell into your standard paranoid delusion about the "antitheistic scientists" who are doing it.

Nope. I merely observed that, IF there are fewer theists than would otherwise have been the case because of the findings of science then that would be an unintended consequence of science. You then went completely tonto by telling us that science doesn't have unintended consequences.

I'm sorry Hillside but I don't think I can meet your needs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry Hillside but I don't think I can meet your needs.

As my only "need" is that you stop lying, for once I believe you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As my only "need" is that you stop lying, for once I believe you.

Well. if it's honesty your after ...........Frankly Scarlet............... I couldn't give a shit what you believe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well. if it's honesty your after ...........Frankly Scarlet............... I couldn't give a shit what you believe.

Yes, when the lying becomes pathological I believe indifference to being caught out is common.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, when the lying becomes pathological I believe indifference to being caught out is common.

Having been told that someone doesn't care about what he believes he then goes on to talk about his beliefs!!!!

If you have to have the last words Hillside why not try something a bit more authentic to your situation like ''I talk antitheist bollocks''?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes it is, You told us that science promotes atheism, and then fell into your standard paranoid delusion about the "antitheistic scientists" who are doing it.

Nope. I merely observed that, IF there are fewer theists than would otherwise have been the case because of the findings of science then that would be an unintended consequence of science. You then went completely tonto by telling us that science doesn't have unintended consequences.

I'm giving your posts up for Lent.

[floo]

I'm giving your posts up for Lent.

Maybe you should give everyone's posts up for Lent!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe you give everyone's posts up for Lent!

What a wonderful idea!

[floo]

What a wonderful idea!

Bye Bye 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm giving your posts up for Lent.

That's up to you, but all I've asked you to give up the lying. You never know, it might be good for your "soul".

[torridon]

#380

When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation. Dare I mention faulty worldview ?

Newton demonstrated an understanding of reality that was intuitive. Einstein however gave us a very different understanding in which matter distorts time, among other things.  That is counterintuitive.  Does this mean that Einstein had a faulty world view ?  I think you need to get over this worldview thing, it seems like a log jam in your thought processes.