BoatBanter.com - In response to...

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - In response to... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/162978-response.html)

In response to...

Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats?

Just curious...

In response to...

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:39:06 AM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats?

Just curious...

No, he's shoving his dick down donnies throat. That's why he doesn't post much, thank god.

In response to...

On 1/4/2015 12:39 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats?

Just curious...

I have yet to see Harry put forth a persuasive argument of his own
crafting. He doesn't have the skill to do so. When he shoves, folks
shove back and he goes nowhere. That's just my casual observation. YMMV

--

I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off!
Respectfully submitted by Justan

In response to...

On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats?

Just curious...

No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if
they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or
legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their
homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like
similar courtesies from the religious.

In response to...

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 7:17:01 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts, I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats?

Just curious...

No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if
they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or
legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their
homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like
similar courtesies from the religious.

The measure of a man can't really be made without first coming to know the purpose of his acts and what he thinks as opposed to relying on hearsay or gossip. As a Christian I have come to know the convictions of those who draw their anti-faith conclusions from denominational Christianity and its failings or perhaps those who understand Christian beliefs via very simplified readings of the Bible.

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there." St Augustine

The quote from St Augustine was used by the astronomer Galileo and rings true for many Christians in that the Bible,at least for some, doesn't represent dictates but a chart for stormy seas of daily life and the calm with which a genuine Christian deals with things - an acquired individual thing rather than a group ideology.

In response to...

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 19:08:03 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/3/15 5:53 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:27:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/3/15 5:09 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:28:15 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

...a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.” Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific
arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing
a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice
to its readers.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.

===

God is dead.

- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

- God

Ahh, but Nietzsche *actually existed* and his thoughts and writings are
still significant, and there is no question that his thoughts and
writings were *his* . :)

How do *you* know? Did you meet him or did you just read about him?

Prove, scientifically, that he existed.

That's just silly. :)

So is the anti-religion crap you're posting.

In response to...

On 1/4/2015 10:16 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/4/15 12:39 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, after reading the article and your responses to various posts,
I jist have to ask- are you shoving anti-religion down people's throats?

Just curious...

No, Tim. I have no plans to go knocking on doors and asking people if
they've found agnosticism, nor do I have any interest in politicians or
legislation outlawing religion or what beliefs people practice in their
homes, places of worship or religious schools. In return, I'd like
similar courtesies from the religious.

That's fair. You don't knock on doors and I won't either. You have my
blessing to practice your beliefs with your family in your home or cult
gathering place or teaching facility.
So that settles it. No more anti religious crap from you. Agreed?

--

I don't need anger management. I just need people to stop ****ing me off!
Respectfully submitted by Justan

In response to...