dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu ; On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote: > Cork Soaker wrote: >> : If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES. >> : The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 200

Thread: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

  1. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    > Cork Soaker wrote:
    >> : If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES.
    >> : The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more
    >> : plausible explanation than some "bloke" who decided to "create an
    >> : eco-system" simply becuase he could.
    >>
    >> "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Then from that reasoning God is it. Its much simpler than evolution.
    > That in itself proves nothing.
    > As you said earlier niether side will give at all to the other. except
    > by the few on both sides that have open minds that do no feel threatened
    > by the other nor go threating the other.
    > That is what start wars Yes many wars have been started by religionists
    > but most of those were started by ones wanting something others had and
    > used religion as an excuse.
    > Neither science or religion is any better than the man using them.


    You didn't read the link, did you? Occam's Razor states that the
    explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as
    possible. The insertion of God into the process is a huge assumption,
    since there is no evidence of such a being...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  2. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:

    > This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    > exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.


    This Christian thinks that you don't know much
    about Christians nor about the Bible.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    "If it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
    a hundred of us could be working with shovels"
    "Yeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
    a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

  3. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > You didn't read the link, did you? Occam's Razor states that the
    > explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as
    > possible. The insertion of God into the process is a huge assumption,


    William of Ockham was a pragmatist.
    The simplest explanation is the best? Define "best."
    Define "simplest."

    The preferred model is the one that best balances predicting
    things you need to predict against the difficulty of predicting
    them. Getting the right answer most of the time without working
    too hard at it.

    Which is entirely different from saying it is "true."

    > since there is no evidence of such a being...


    Of course, all sides of the argument will define "evidence"
    so that it doesn't include anything that supports the other
    side.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    "Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious."
    "You mean like circular reasoning?"
    "He believes in God. Therefore, he's fallacious."

  4. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >
    >> This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    >> exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.

    >
    > This Christian thinks that you don't know much
    > about Christians nor about the Bible.
    >


    Care to spell it out more accurately?
    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  5. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> You didn't read the link, did you? Occam's Razor states that the
    >> explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as
    >> possible. The insertion of God into the process is a huge assumption,

    >
    > William of Ockham was a pragmatist.
    > The simplest explanation is the best? Define "best."
    > Define "simplest."
    >
    > The preferred model is the one that best balances predicting
    > things you need to predict against the difficulty of predicting
    > them. Getting the right answer most of the time without working
    > too hard at it.
    >
    > Which is entirely different from saying it is "true."
    >
    > > since there is no evidence of such a being...

    >
    > Of course, all sides of the argument will define "evidence"
    > so that it doesn't include anything that supports the other
    > side.
    >


    Not at all. Evidence, you know, something you can show to support
    your theory. Not a made-up figment of the imagination...

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  6. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:
    >.... The bible states that God is energy.


    Citation?

    > wrong. Yet the order of creation in the bible agrees with science.


    I know the citation this time. Genesis 1-3. It's too vague to
    be dogmatic about this, but I don't think the order matches the
    most common evolutionary timelines.

    One interesting point: there was light .... first day.
    And on which day were the sun and moon created?

    It was said that God is a huge assumption.

    Isn't it also a big assumption to declare that there exists
    some inviolable natural law that we don't fully understand
    but that we do know beyond any shadow of doubt that there
    exists no being capable of deviating from said law?

    > This thread was about parental controls. I still cannot see how anyone
    > can trust the upbringing of their children to someone they don't know.
    > They should be doing those controls themselves.


    Presumably, they acquire the "module" from someone they trust
    shares their values. Then, they may or may not customize it
    to suit themselves.


    --
    Wes Groleau

    I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
    intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
    from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with
    the release of MS-DOS.
    -- Larry DeLuca

  7. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:09:11 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:

    > This "punishment" was not for eating some fruit, but for disobeying and
    > not trusting God to provide for us. Doe's it not still happen in 2008?
    > People openly stating they don't "need" any God, and they can do it
    > themselves on their own power and smarts. Just look at this planet. Open
    > your mind!


    Pagans love this planet, by definition. Christians do not, for them the
    world is just a temporary place to prepare them for heaven.

    "The world is the land of satan. The chosen ones will rise to heaven and
    the world will end soon." Allows the believer to do whatever he wants to
    the planet, as long as he is going to heaven, it doesn't matter.

    "The earth is sacred. Our children will need this planet for eternity,
    we are all stuck here together." Forces the believer to think of the
    effect his actions have on the planet and all its people, for eternity.

    Which belief system is better for the planet?

    Also, now that you have me going......

    God is not insecure. He does not want his creations to kneel to him or
    pray. He wants us to be self-sufficient. He wants us to think for
    ourselves, and use our own moral compass to guide us. And further more,
    the bible is not a "Reference", it is a work of fiction. If you listen
    to god, not your preacher or bible, you will hear what I am saying.

    Oh, now don't go saying that satan will confuse you if you don't follow
    the bible. As you do know the devil is a master of deception. How do
    you know that he did not force those men to write that book to keep
    people away from the true light?.....

    And another thing, this name calling thing. Why do people feel the need
    to package an infinite force such as god, and say you must pray to him,
    by some name. If you get the wrong name, you are praying to the wrong
    god....Total bull****.


    And another thing, the rules did not change 2000 years ago.

    stonerfish

  8. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    >
    > Accepted with friendliness.


    No problem. Thank you.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  9. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:09:11 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >
    >> This "punishment" was not for eating some fruit, but for disobeying and
    >> not trusting God to provide for us. Doe's it not still happen in 2008?
    >> People openly stating they don't "need" any God, and they can do it
    >> themselves on their own power and smarts. Just look at this planet. Open
    >> your mind!
    >>

    >
    > Pagans love this planet, by definition. Christians do not, for them the
    > world is just a temporary place to prepare them for heaven.
    >
    > "The world is the land of satan. The chosen ones will rise to heaven and
    > the world will end soon." Allows the believer to do whatever he wants to
    > the planet, as long as he is going to heaven, it doesn't matter.
    >
    > "The earth is sacred. Our children will need this planet for eternity,
    > we are all stuck here together." Forces the believer to think of the
    > effect his actions have on the planet and all its people, for eternity.
    >
    > Which belief system is better for the planet?
    >
    > Also, now that you have me going......
    >
    > God is not insecure. He does not want his creations to kneel to him or
    > pray. He wants us to be self-sufficient. He wants us to think for
    > ourselves, and use our own moral compass to guide us. And further more,
    > the bible is not a "Reference", it is a work of fiction. If you listen
    > to god, not your preacher or bible, you will hear what I am saying.
    >
    > Oh, now don't go saying that satan will confuse you if you don't follow
    > the bible. As you do know the devil is a master of deception. How do
    > you know that he did not force those men to write that book to keep
    > people away from the true light?.....
    >
    > And another thing, this name calling thing. Why do people feel the need
    > to package an infinite force such as god, and say you must pray to him,
    > by some name. If you get the wrong name, you are praying to the wrong
    > god....Total bull****.
    >
    >
    > And another thing, the rules did not change 2000 years ago.
    >
    > stonerfish
    >



    For someone who refuses to read God's Word, the Bible (all we have now),
    you certainly claim to know it all.

    How can this be? Where did you obtain all of your knowledge? Were you there?

    Perhaps from the tree?

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  10. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "Phil Stovell" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2008.04.10.07.04.59.421372@stovell.org.uk...
    >>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:50:42 +0000, Roy Strachan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:07:45 +0100, Phil Stovell
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:45:11 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> I have installed the Christian Parental Controls module
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm appalled.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It'd be OK if there's also Jewish, Moslem and Atheist parental
    >>>>> controls
    >>>>> modules. Is there?
    >>>>
    >>>> Since most wars throughout history have been fought over religion and
    >>>> very few, if any, fought over porn, I'm for blocking religious sites.
    >>>
    >>> Apart from this one: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

    >>
    >> quote from their "FAQ"
    >>
    >> "As I always say, it is not for us to question how the Lord gets his
    >> kicks, but basically, unless your retarded, deaf, dumb and blind
    >> sister finds some way of understanding that Jesus died for her sins,
    >> and she miraculously finds the cognitive ability to accept Him as her
    >> personal savior, she is going to roast in Hell along with all the
    >> Catholics, child molesters, fornicators and mass murderers, not to
    >> mention the aborted and miscarried fetuses, who were also never able
    >> to comprehend Jesus and must therefore be tortured for eternity. "
    >>
    >> That is why religions are bad, people twist and distort "a bible" to
    >> fit whatever their personal hates are.
    >> Remember religion was invented by man not by God.

    >
    >
    > You gotta be really careful here, Dennis.
    >
    > You are most correct in stating "religions" aren't something God
    > invented. To the contrary, Jesus hated religion.
    >
    > However, my point is most people think the word "religion" covers
    > everything and everybody. Using "religion" in a "loose" way can harm
    > someone's idea of what a personal relationship with God really means.
    > These people (actually, most of the world), do not (yet) know of what I
    > speak.
    >
    > I have that personal relationship with God -- I am a "born-again
    > Christian" as many would probably label me. But I hate religion. It is
    > nothing but trouble as most have posted here in this, er, Ubuntu group.
    > As you can see, even discussing "religion" starts problems. ;-)
    >
    >



    Even the Bible states that religion will be destroyed.
    This started when the op asked about Christian parental blocking.
    I ask why would you put your trust in outsiders, nothing religious
    there. Then others started blasting religion instead of just leaving it
    and respecting another's belief.
    caver1

  11. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    >> there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >>
    >> The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little minded.
    >> Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many
    >> have to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    >> You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse me
    >> of havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I
    >> believed in god or not.

    >
    >
    > I certainly don't want to even take part in any silly debate on
    > "religion," but I do want to point out that your comment about
    > "Christian belief states that there was no beginning" is totally false.
    > You obviously are trying to show some intelligence in the subject, but
    > just are not yet up to speed with the true facts as opposed to opinion.
    >
    > You used and violated a prime example of your "close[d] minded and
    > little minded" example here, as well as violating your own idea to keep
    > your "beliefs" to yourself, and belittling the OP on his belief(s).
    >


    I don't either But I beg to differ as Christian belief states that God
    has no beginning no end.
    If the one who "started everything" has no beginning then there is none.
    May your belief is that is not true but in general that is the case and
    that is what the bible states.
    The close mined are those that have to "bad mouth" others for their
    belief instead of letting it go and show them respect as a human being.
    caver1

  12. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Dogma Discharge wrote:
    >> "Bruce Sinclair"
    >> wrote in message news:ftjlvk$fm9$1@aioe.org...
    >>
    >>> In article , "Cork Soaker"
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> : FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    >>>> Yes they are.
    >>>>
    >>> I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    >>> The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> It is indeed possible to have this, although I would go as far to say
    >> that religious scientists have some serious internal issues to deal
    >> with. For instance; I believe that Evolution directly conflicts with
    >> Genesis, and seeing as it's (Evolution) an observed fact and known to
    >> be true, the book of genesis is in some serious ****e.
    >>

    >
    >
    > There is no conflict that I see. You are free to believe whatever you
    > want, but I'm curious: Where do you see it?
    >
    >
    >> Religious beliefs = Self Delusions. Why delude ur kids, why keep them
    >> from information? Far be it from me to give anyone advice on how to
    >> raise their kids, but for Gods sake (snicker) at least give them a
    >> fighting chance and let them have the truth, science is nothing but
    >> observed facts, religion is based on nothing but faith, which of the 2
    >> are you going to feed?

    >
    >
    > I certainly wouldn't feed my children (or anyone) "religion."
    >
    > But I'd gladly provide scientific theory, and Bible-based theory, so
    > they could make up their own mind what they wanted to BELIEVE by FAITH.
    >
    > That's inclusive too, and not "one or the other."
    >
    >




    That is what I was trying to point out. trying to stay vague, which was
    a mistake, so as not to get into a religious debate as not matter how
    precise you get there will always be someone who disagrees. But both
    deserve respect as a human and neither has the right to lamb bast the
    other for those beliefs. One side does not hold the rights to that wrong.
    That was all I was trying to point out.
    caver1

  13. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>>> The stsrt point is the same - faith.
    >>>> Think about it.
    >>>> In the beginning there was void, nothingness. Where did everything come
    >>>> from? God made it.
    >>>> or
    >>>> In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>>> was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>>> where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>>> faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>>> They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >>> No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science
    >>> says that something was always there. A small piece of that something
    >>> was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The
    >>> singularity exploded, and produced our known universe.

    >>
    >> Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    >> there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >>

    >
    > No, not true in the least. Christian belief states that the beginning
    > is when God says it was. The 6 days of creation, and the day of rest.
    > Before that, there was nothing but God, who was always there. That is
    > a bit different.




    Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......

    It wasn't until after that that the 6 days,however you want to interpret
    the length of them, began. The 6 periods talk about his creation on
    earth not the creation of.



    > I do not accuse you of what you think I do, but I do accuse you of a
    > lack of understanding, and in all probability, your understanding
    > lacks on both sides of the aisle.
    >
    > You may want to take that as an insult, and you shouldn't. It is mere
    > statement of what you present here. Perhaps you are trying to spread
    > your argument too thin to try to make it work, but in reality, Science
    > requires no faith. The entire foundation of religion is faith.
    > Nowhere near the same thing.




    As those fighting against religious faith, or faith in God, or whatever
    you want to call it. Yes they do have a faith. they have a faith that
    there is no God. They have no proof. That is a faith.


    > You are unlikely to tell me anything that will change that statement.
    > I studied for 4 years at a Jesuit College. I spent a lot of time
    > studying several religions, including the one that I participated in
    > at the time (Catholosizm). I am a confirmed Catholic, and now I am an
    > Atheist simply because of what I learned of religion. I am not a
    > scientist (I am a computer geek at the core), but I do spend a bit of
    > time reading the works of some of the better popular physicists out
    > there, and have a slightly better than layman understanding from that
    > angle, as well. I am not arguing with you to put down your ideas or
    > beliefs, but simply to point out your mis-statements.



    I was not and have not put out what I believe. You will never be able to
    tell by what I have written here. I stayed vague, which was a mistake,
    to stay away from one side or the other. What I was trying to point out
    that ones that do not believe the way you do do not have the right to
    degrade you or your beliefs. And it is done on both sides.
    That is what was happening to the OP look at the beginning of the thread.
    No matter what you put down as to what you think the truth is someone is
    going to disagree with you so I was trying to stay away from that.



    >>> It is a bit more complex than that, but that is a good start. Oddly
    >>> enough, as brilliant as he is, Hawking explains it all in a very
    >>> compelling and easy to understand manner, if you can put aside your
    >>> religious bent...
    >>>




    I too have and keep reading many scientific publications as Have the
    want to learn.



    >>
    >>
    >>i
    >> The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little minded.
    >> Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many have
    >> to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    >> You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse me of
    >> havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I believed in
    >> god or not.

    >
    > I accused you (personally) of nothing. Odd that you would read that
    > into it. The "you" in that last sentence is collective, not personal.
    > If any individual can listen to what Hawking says without applying
    > their personal religious bent to it, they can see that what he is
    > saying is pretty logical and almost even simple.
    >
    > You are free to have whatever religious beliefs you want. I just wish
    > the religious would stop trying to push their myths on the rest of the
    > world. In the first 21 years of my life, I was a Catholic. Not a
    > single Atheist ever tried to convert me. For the past 15 years, I
    > have been an Atheist. I cannot count the number of religious folks
    > that have tried to put me on the proper path in that time.
    >


  14. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    >>> there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >>>
    >>> The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little
    >>> minded.
    >>> Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many
    >>> have to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    >>> You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse me
    >>> of havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I
    >>> believed in god or not.

    >>
    >>
    >> I certainly don't want to even take part in any silly debate on
    >> "religion," but I do want to point out that your comment about
    >> "Christian belief states that there was no beginning" is totally
    >> false. You obviously are trying to show some intelligence in the
    >> subject, but just are not yet up to speed with the true facts as
    >> opposed to opinion.
    >>
    >> You used and violated a prime example of your "close[d] minded and
    >> little minded" example here, as well as violating your own idea to
    >> keep your "beliefs" to yourself, and belittling the OP on his belief(s).
    >>

    >
    > I don't either But I beg to differ as Christian belief states that God
    > has no beginning no end.
    > If the one who "started everything" has no beginning then there is none.
    > May your belief is that is not true but in general that is the case
    > and that is what the bible states.
    > The close mined are those that have to "bad mouth" others for their
    > belief instead of letting it go and show them respect as a human being.
    > caver1



    Oh, sorry, Caver.

    I thought you were talking about the beginning of the world, knowing
    very well there is the creation story. My error.

    Genesis 1:1 states: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    You are correct that He has always been -- at least as observers could
    understand Him. The Genesis 1:1 verse describes the Creation of what we
    can see, but God was already here.

    Now compare these verses:

    Rev. 1:8 -- "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is,
    and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

    Rev. 2:16 -- He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega,
    the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink
    without cost from the spring of the water of life.

    Rev. 22:13 -- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the
    Beginning and the End.

    The last two above clearly state that God is the Beginning and the End.
    The first one adds that He Is. You remember he told Moses, "I AM" in
    Exodus 3:14: God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to
    say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

    Alpha represents the beginning, while Omega is the last Greek letter.

    Then John 1:1-5 states: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
    with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
    been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The
    light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

    Read those two paragraphs a few times until you get a good grasp on what
    they are clearly stating about the Word.

    1. The Word was here (existed) in the beginning.

    2. The Word was with God.

    3. The Word was God.

    4. The Word was with God in the beginning.

    5. The Word created everything that has ever existed.

    It sounds like the "Word" might be God's voice, but there is more to it.

    John 1:14 tells us Who the Word is.

    For those readers without a Bible, here is a link:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

    Notice verse 14.

    Remember Christmas? ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  15. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Here is where you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I ever say God
    >>>> exists?
    >>>> There are equally closed minds on both sides.
    >>>> Both say that everything came from nothing.
    >>>> Even Quantum mechanics.
    >>>> Every one says the size of the Universe is impossible for the human mind
    >>>> to comprehend. Try imagining nothing thats even harder.
    >>>> Both sides rely on a certain amount of faith.
    >>>> It is a little mind that belittles someone for their beliefs. And
    >>>> neither side is free of that little mindedness.
    >>> No, science does not rely on faith, nor does it state that everything
    >>> came from nothing. Science is a search. It starts with the
    >>> understanding that we do not know everything, and works towards
    >>> figuring out as much as we can in a search for knowledge.

    >>
    >>
    >> No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    >> the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is known.
    >>

    >
    > This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    > exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.
    > They may try to fudge it a bit to fit more with reality by saying that
    > God's 6 days are like millions to us, but they still use that story as
    > the be all and end all. The "zealots" will claim that all of science>
    > is a lie and that the history of the world only encompasses the last
    > 6000 years...




    That is not true if you go through the gambit of different "Christian"
    religions there are many interpretations as to the length of those days.
    Only the closed minded "faithful" knows how everything was created. A
    God in the Bible does not say how just that he did.


    >>> Religion starts out by assuming that we do know everything. Anything
    >>> that we don't have a rational answer for, we just lump into "God made
    >>> it", and whammo - simple explanation. The two are mutually exclusive,
    >>> and only one of them is closed-minded.

    >> If you follow the what I call the non-zealot creationists,for lack of a
    >> better term, They state that God did create everything but they do not
    >> know how as God never said.




    The Bible states that God knows everything and Man will never know as
    much as God. Your above statement is once again the close minded.


    > They know exactly how. He waved his hands, and it was there. They
    > have no thirst for further knowledge. God said "let there be light"
    > and there was. The core of religion is faith in that myth, or others
    > much like it for systems other than Jewish/Christian. The core of
    > science is a thirst for understanding of those things that we do not
    > know now.
    >
    >>
    >>> Hell, Science does not even insist that there is no "creator". That
    >>> is always the possibility. It may just turn out that it is the
    >>> eventual answer. The difference is that science will not get there
    >>> without proof. For religion, no proof is needed, and no lack of proof
    >>> will ever be enough to dissuade.




    But many "Zealots" do say there is no God and lamb bast those that
    believe in God. Look at the beginning of this thread.
    Those do have a faith that there is no God as they have no proof.
    Only the close minded need no proof




    >> But many anti religious, science faithful( for lack of a better term) do
    >> say there was no creator.

    >
    > No, they do not. They say that there is no evidence of a creator.
    > That is much different.



    Look at the beginng of this thread to those who accuse the one who want
    Christian parental blocking of brainwashing his kids and there is no God.
    I did not say all. This is true of both sides. The open minded say there
    is no proof and leave the others alone.


    It is impossible to prove a negative in the
    > world of science. You cannot prove that something never existed.
    > What you can do, though, is look for evidence of the positive, and
    > report the lack thereof. It is true that to many in the world of
    > Science, the religious are looked upon with comedic scorn. The reason
    > is not that they are saying that there is no God. The reason is more
    > that they find it amazing that someone would put the whole basis of
    > their life on something that they have no evidence to show that it
    > exists.



    That gives them no reason to degrade them for that. Just as it gives the
    close minded religious "zealots" do do the same.


    >> My point here is At this point there is no ultimate proof either way. So
    >> any on either side can denigrate the other for their faith and this
    >> discussion has proven a point that most on either side are very closed
    >> minded.

    >
    > There can be no proof that there is no God (or anything else for that
    > matter). Your view is wrong, though. You are calling people closed
    > minded when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Their argument
    > has always been that without proof, there is no point in belief.



    That is where you can only decide that for yourself. As that can always
    be turned the other way. For lack of evidence that God does not exist
    how can you not believe?
    The point of what I was trying to make was not if one side is right or
    wrong but neither side has the right to lamb bast the others beliefs as
    they were doing in the beginning of this thread.
    I tried to stay vague as to certain specifics as I didn't want to get
    into that type of debate. I made a mistake as many here focused in on
    one or two words insted of the complete statement. No where in here did
    I say if I believed in God or not nor will I.
    Religion has its place science has its place and they do not have to be
    mutual exclusive. Only in the close minded on both sides are they.
    And I do believe what you said said the same.



    >
    > And let's face it, Religion has always made Science the enemy.
    > Scientists have been burned as witches, excommunicated, imprisoned or
    > tortured for saying things (with evidence) that didn't fit into the
    > bible. When the Church said that the Earth was the center of the
    > Univers, Galileo was not treated very well for proving otherwise...




    True Galileo was open minded the religious leaders of his time were not
    they refused to listen. Even the Bible states that all false religion
    will be destroyed. I do not want to get into that as there are many
    definitions as to the meaning of false.



    > Now how many scientists have tortured or killed Priests for having a
    > different point of view?




    It happens today. Not to the extremes of the past. But if you do not
    take your research in a certain direction you will not get funding.
    I am not making excuses. The whole course of human history has been one
    cruelty on man brought on by another man. Religious or not. There have
    been many holy wars, the Crusades amongst others. There have been an
    equal amount of non religious wars, Civil wars amongst others.
    It is only the closed minded that tries to put all the wrongs on the
    other side. We are all human and deserve respect on that account.


    >
    >


  16. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-09, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>>> In article , "Cork Soaker" wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> : FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    >>>>> Yes they are.
    >>>> I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    >>>> The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >>>>
    >>> Absolutely. It is possible to start out with a belief in God, then
    >>> set out in search of proof. The only thing that would make them
    >>> "good" scientists, though, is if they were willing to disregard their
    >>> faith in a creator if such evidence came around that sufficiently
    >>> proved a different truth. Most religious folks cannot do this.



    But not all. That is the point I am trying to make. And it is the same
    on the other side. Look at the beginning of this thread where the Op was
    accused of brainwashing his children because he dared asked for a
    Christian program.
    That is his beliefs leave him to them.


    >>>

    >>
    >> Most "science believers" are the same way. If they find something that
    >> may back up a religious belief the person to them is a Quack, or there
    >> was something wrong with the science or whatever.
    >> And those religious folk that cannot are close minded.

    >
    > Could you give a valid example of this? Has some evidence of God been
    > found, and I am not aware?
    >



    Show me some where he has been disproved. And I am not talking about
    someone interpretation of their religion.
    I am talking facts.
    The religious one should not find fault for scientists trying to find
    the answers. Only the close minded ones do that.

  17. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-10, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >> "caver1" wrote in message
    >> news:47fd375e$0$6155$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >> : Cork Soaker wrote:
    >> : > : In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >> : > : was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >> : > : where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >> : > : faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >> : > : They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >> : >
    >> : >
    >> : > Haven't read much Quantum Theory have you?
    >> : >
    >> : >
    >> :
    >> :
    >> : Even Quantum only goes back so far.
    >>
    >> You've pretty much proved my point there.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Quantum theory is the study of the very small, caver. Quantum is
    > exactly what describes the process that started the big bang. The
    > problem scientists have had for quite some time is the transition.
    > You have the theories of how atoms interact on the level of particles,
    > which is much different than Relativity, which describes how objects
    > interact in big-space.
    >
    > In recent years, the two theories have begun to be tied together into
    > string theory. It is likely the end of the discussion. Once strings
    > are fully understood, it is very possible that we will have a pretty
    > complete understanding of how the univers started. Soon, CERN will be
    > doing an experiment in which 2 particles will collide after a trip
    > through a 14 mile long accelerator. When they hit, it is expected
    > that they will produce a mini black hole, which will provide a lot of
    > energy, and will also provide answers to a lot of these questions.
    >



    I agree. Or it may just add many more questions. we do not know that and
    anyone that says otherwise is showing their faith.
    I never said that scientific faith was wrong just that is was there.
    I may not know as much about Quantum Mechanics as you. Who knows. I
    drive my family and my friends nuts trying to stay on top of these
    things. I know what Quantum is.
    But at the same time just because Quantum theory exists does that give
    the right to belittle someone for their beliefs just because they have
    them. Once again read the whole thread.
    Then again Science has always maintained that it takes many millions of
    years to make a planet, yet just the other day the claim to have found a
    planet that did no exist 2000 years ago. How many new questions does
    that bring up.
    I have always taught my kids to always look for the truth stay curious.
    Never go to one source for your information for that is dangerous.
    But always show respect for the other person regardless of their beliefs.
    The posters at the beginning of this thread did not do that. Many on
    both sides do not show respect for the other.
    caver1

  18. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >> Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>> : If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES.
    >>> : The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more
    >>> : plausible explanation than some "bloke" who decided to "create an
    >>> : eco-system" simply becuase he could.
    >>>
    >>> "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Then from that reasoning God is it. Its much simpler than evolution.
    >> That in itself proves nothing.
    >> As you said earlier niether side will give at all to the other. except
    >> by the few on both sides that have open minds that do no feel threatened
    >> by the other nor go threating the other.
    >> That is what start wars Yes many wars have been started by religionists
    >> but most of those were started by ones wanting something others had and
    >> used religion as an excuse.
    >> Neither science or religion is any better than the man using them.

    >
    > You didn't read the link, did you? Occam's Razor states that the
    > explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
    > possible. The insertion of God into the process is a huge assumption,
    > since there is no evidence of such a being...
    >
    >




    I know what Occam's Razor is. I am not uneducated. I was answering your
    quote > "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
    without the rest of Occam's then it can be turned on you is all I was
    trying to point out.

    If you would read the whole thread even what you state I am not trying
    to prove or disprove either side. You cannot prove or disprove that God
    exists. So ones on both sides need to show respect for the other.
    Many do not.
    Never in this thread did I say you were wrong. Just that when it comes
    to faith and science they are not mutually exclusive unless you are
    close minded regardless of which side you are on.
    They can be but do not have to be.
    Ask Galileo, Newton, Einstein and many others. Never in this thread did
    I say science was wrong. I has been in the past, Brahe for example, and
    will be in the future. That does not give anyone the right to denegrate
    scientists, but some,many, do.

  19. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >
    >> This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    >> exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.

    >
    > This Christian thinks that you don't know much
    > about Christians nor about the Bible.
    >



    Which branch of "Christianity' Is he talking about and is he only
    quoting the close minded ones does he really know?
    Who cares what they believe as humans they still deserve respect.
    I have found the opposite to be true. Most that are very vocal about
    their disbelief in the bible or God know very little about it first hand.
    Yes a preacher has told them what it says. Or their parents told them
    what it says. But have they read it for themselves to see for themselves
    what it says? So they really have no basis to believe or disbelieve.
    The same cane be said about true believers.
    If you have not looked into something yourself you can be mislead.
    I remember that before Nixon went to China we were told by the gov't
    that we were to dislike the Chinese Then he went to China and wow
    because the gov't told us the Chinese were our friends.
    On what basis? How many of us had ever meet someone from China?
    So where is the basis for like or dislike?
    caver1

  20. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:11:39 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:

    You don't really believe that giving your soul to jesus will put you in
    heaven do you? I mean come on.

    >
    > For someone who refuses to read God's Word, the Bible (all we have now),
    > you certainly claim to know it all.
    >


    The bible is not god's word. If the bible is all you have to guide you
    then you are in a heap of spiritual trouble.

    I didn't say I didn't read the bible. I have read it. When I was a bit
    younger, I went to a church and thought I was flawed because I didn't
    have jesus in my heart. I was worried I would go to hell. There were a
    few years where the guilt was strong, and I was very depressed. I even
    would try to pray to jesus, I kept begging him to come into me, and turn
    off my doubt. I grew up, and now know better. I don't know it all, but
    I know Santa Claus isn't real.

    > How can this be? Where did you obtain all of your knowledge? Were you
    > there?


    I told you. I know, because I know, because god told me. That my boy is
    faith. I don't get my god from a book. As a matter of fact, I find that
    book insulting to god. It portrays him as an insecure, lonely entity
    with a need for others to submit to his authority. I could list verses
    to show my point, but I think you know the passages, and probably think
    that these are good traits for a god?

    > Perhaps from the tree?


    No, but some plants and fungus once in a while do help. Erasing the
    preconditioning of my youth was not easy. I managed to rise above it.
    But I am one of the exceptions.

    stonerfish


+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast