Visits from "beyond"...

Aldolphi wrote:

Yowie wrote:

7/10 on the troll-o-meter. Good try, but the subject matter is a little
dated for Usenet.

Strange how when you hit a nerve with some residents of Usenet, instead
of engaging in intelligent discussion, the just throw the old troll card
at you...

If I wanted an intelligent discussion, you would not be the person I'd go
to.

Joyce

--
A clean house is a sign of a broken computer.

On Mar 1, 1:48*am, "Joy" wrote:
"Aldolphi" wrote in message

...

On 01/03/2011 00:44, Yowie wrote:

7/10 on the troll-o-meter. Good try, but the subject matter is a little
dated for Usenet.

Strange how when you hit a nerve with some residents of Usenet, instead of
engaging in intelligent discussion, the just throw the old troll card at
you...

It's just like a magic spell... whispered on a Sunday... Meaningless.

Your comment didn't sound like intelligent discussion. *It sounded like a
deliberate insult against someone who isn't even part of this group.

I don't suppose anyone would have a recipe on hand for a good meatless
chili? I'm thinking of something using chopped portobellos or some
such thing in place of the beef, so I can cook up something for my
bored, newly-retired, vegetarian father-in-law, a devout Sikh chemist
and engineer.

Blessed be,
Baha

On 01/03/2011 06:48, Joy wrote:

Your comment didn't sound like intelligent discussion. It sounded like a
deliberate insult against someone who isn't even part of this group.


Gosh! You folks are a fickle bunch!

If the poster didn't want someone to critique the idea of science and
religion... then surely the best course of action to avoid such input
would be to refrain from bringing the subject up in the first place?

I understand Usenet is a very territorial place... but surely that
doesn't remove the ability to look at things with a wider mind?

There was no direct insult if you care to look at the post without the
blinkers... I was just reflecting on the irony of a scientist being
religious...

My apologies that it appears to have passed way over your head...

On 01/03/2011 07:07, wrote:

If I wanted an intelligent discussion, you would not be the person I'd go
to.


I very much doubt you'd be able to have an intelligent discussion with
me... I'm the kind of person that looks at subjects with an open mind...

Dogma and sensitivities aren't constructive when debating faith...

On 01/03/2011 07:05, wrote:

You beat me to it, Yowie. Someone we've never seen posting here before
shows up and starts inundating us with atheist arguments?


Atheist? Here we go again with broad generalization. This happens all
the time when discussing religious beliefs!

I'm agnostic. When anyone uses the scientific method of analysing
religion... the ONLY true stance to take is one of agnosticism.

It's all in the meaning of the word.

Agnostic: asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge

As religion and atheism are based solely on unproven beliefs... the only
logical stance to take is that of an agnostic. This way I don't have
the burden of proof which the scientific method requires and which the
other two stances are unable to fulfil.

On 01/03/2011 13:32, BfloPolska wrote:

I don't suppose anyone would have a recipe...

When you're unable or unwilling to delve into the realms of belief with
someone who questions it... get the recipes out

How predictable...

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:19:15 +0000, Aldolphi
wrote:

On 01/03/2011 07:05, wrote:

You beat me to it, Yowie. Someone we've never seen posting here before
shows up and starts inundating us with atheist arguments?


Atheist? Here we go again with broad generalization. This happens all
the time when discussing religious beliefs!

I'm agnostic. When anyone uses the scientific method of analysing
religion... the ONLY true stance to take is one of agnosticism.

It's all in the meaning of the word.

Agnostic: asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge

As religion and atheism are based solely on unproven beliefs... the only
logical stance to take is that of an agnostic. This way I don't have
the burden of proof which the scientific method requires and which the
other two stances are unable to fulfil.

I'm in the agnostic camp myself. I've read many sci-fi and fantasy
books in my life, and most of them have a far more believeable (for
me) explanation of "life, the universe, and everything" than the old,
new, or Muslim bibles. So, while I doubt that we have some
guy/girl/thing with a long white beard and blue eyes wearing a white
robe looking down at us, I have to figure that something created the
universe and perhaps that there is even some point to it. My main
theory is that we're a science project for some alien 3rd grade class.

However, I suspect that I have as much chance of understanding what
it's all about as an ant understands why I'm smacking my fingers into
a keyboard.

So, maybe part of the reason that some folks see spirits and departed
cat souls is because they believe that it can happen, and some ground
rule in the universe requires that belief before the actual physical
event can occur.

One of my best friends had a "near death experience" and insists that
she saw some departed family members or some such stuff. I think it
was probably caused by toxins released by dying brain cells but I
can't know that for sure.

What I DO know for sure is that, if heaven doesn't have my cats
waiting for me, I'm not going.

Aldolphi wrote:

On 01/03/2011 07:05, wrote:

You beat me to it, Yowie. Someone we've never seen posting here before
shows up and starts inundating us with atheist arguments?


Atheist? Here we go again with broad generalization. This happens all
the time when discussing religious beliefs!

I'm agnostic. When anyone uses the scientific method of analysing
religion... the ONLY true stance to take is one of agnosticism.

I'm agnostic, too. I just don't go around telling other people they're
stupid, gullible, not properly analytical, or whatever you're jabbering
about, because of what they believe or how they go about believing it.

JOyce

--
Who ever thought up the word "Mammogram"? Every time I hear it, I think
I'm supposed to put my breast in an envelope and send it to someone.
-- Jan King

"Aldolphi" wrote in message
...
On 01/03/2011 06:48, Joy wrote:

Your comment didn't sound like intelligent discussion. It sounded like a
deliberate insult against someone who isn't even part of this group.


Gosh! You folks are a fickle bunch!

If the poster didn't want someone to critique the idea of science and
religion... then surely the best course of action to avoid such input
would be to refrain from bringing the subject up in the first place?

I understand Usenet is a very territorial place... but surely that doesn't
remove the ability to look at things with a wider mind?

There was no direct insult if you care to look at the post without the
blinkers... I was just reflecting on the irony of a scientist being
religious...

My apologies that it appears to have passed way over your head...

Your comment, "That worries me" was hardly looking at anything with a wider
mind.

There are probably newsgroups where every post is expected to be challenged.
This is not one of them.

Joy

"Aldolphi" wrote in message
...
On 01/03/2011 07:07, wrote:

If I wanted an intelligent discussion, you would not be the person I'd go
to.


I very much doubt you'd be able to have an intelligent discussion with
me... I'm the kind of person that looks at subjects with an open mind...

Dogma and sensitivities aren't constructive when debating faith...

"That worries me" doesn't sound like an open mind to me. Neither does the
comment that followed that.

Joy