Christians - A Penny For Your Thoughts.

[JPreston]

Hhhmm I wonder, in fixing my PC (as per earlier post) should I place my faith in science, or religion?

[Byatt]

Hhhmm I wonder, in fixing my PC (as per earlier post) should I place my faith in science, or religion?

The behaviour of computers is possibly the best evidence I have seen for the existence of the supernatural, so I reckon a bit of both would do you no harm!

[JPreston]

Another thought/clarification on the religion-discussed-in-the-workplace question;

I say it should be discouraged for precisely as long as people generally accept this bizarre halo of unquestioning that associates itself with religion. So to the british airways crone? Put your crucifix under your blouse.

Once it's generally accepted to question and debate religious beliefs, and people learn how to do this without blowing anyone up even a little bit, then there should be no taboo about discussing religion.

The problem is this vicar of dibley veneer of being nice to everybody. Except Ammonites and Moabites. Christians hate those losers - look it up

[nichomach]

Except a person doesn't choose their race, and I believe all races to be equally valid. On the other hand, if someone chooses a belief system that is plainly idiotic then they should really be prepared to have it challenged, or at least be sporting when it is.

According to your beliefs, your subordinate's beliefs were idiotic, so you were quite justified in ridiculing and belittling him.

So it's not even slightly similar, is it? You can't just arbitrarily set your beliefs as being above question and expect everyone else to play along.

Of course, that's precisely what you did to your subordinate, though, isn't it? You set your beliefs above his, and expecting him to laugh along as you ridiculed and mocked his. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, do you REALLY think that was appropriate?

No, I ridicule their faith. You really shouldn't be so precious about it, if you are so sure of your beliefs, why do you not think they are capable of withstanding a little scrutiny?

You don't scrutinise, you ridicule and mock. Fine, that's the level on which you choose to operate. Of course, what you define as scrutiny effectively means "must pass a test based on an assumption that I am right and it is wrong"...

Taking this debate forward, I'll say my main PC is sadly screwed at the moment (which is why I can't be that active in this thread). Something to do with the IDE devices I think, I have an IDE hard drive that started making the weirdest noises a week or so ago, and a DVD burner that causes BSOD as soon as I put a disc in it and what's worse, after the BSOD the PC won't boot all the way into windows, just more BSODs.

It's entirely possible that you have two distinct issues; a wonky hard disk AND a wonky burner. Have you tried the devices in another machine? Or tried alternate devices off the same controller? Obviously, if they fail in another machine, problem solved. If they don't, or if one doesn't, then we're looking at a failure somewhere else, possibly a wonky cap. I've seen similar problems caused by that on my old Athlon MP system at work. Ten blown/leaking caps - looked like it had a flock of seagulls visit. No, not the band. Can you recall any of the content of the BSOD, like the STOP code?

I was at a loss to think what might be causing this, I haven't updated any drivers or tweaked anything recently. So inevitably I've come to the conclusion that my PC is possessed by Satan (it's not baptised).

Look, Bill Gates ISN'T Satan...oh you mean LITERALLY possessed by... Generally we don't baptise PCs since pouring water over them is contra-indicated . However, I DO know priests who'll bless anything that stays still long enough, sooooo...

Would any 'true believers' reading this please do me a favour and pray for my PC, and I'll post back with an update to say if it worked?

Errrr...if the idea is to use that as some sort of proof, that's actually a no-no. You're not supposed to put God to the test. I'm assuming that you're being jocular, however.

Alternatively if anyone can recommend any faith-based PC repair services, I'm all ears because I've tried science based remedies like changing IDE channel and fiddling with the BIOS, but they did not help. I think I need a more holistic solution....and prayer works.....doesn't it?

Well, I tend to think that either you've got two wonky IDE devices, or the motherboard's goosed. To put it another way, I don't think we've really gone through ALL the science-based remedies yet...

Or, would anyone like to prove that my PC is not possessed by Satan?

I think it's probably possessed by a wonky board...

To tell the truth I'd actually be reassured if I knew I could just reinstall or upgrade my way out of this fix.

From what you're describing, I don't think so; I've seen something similar a LONG time ago due to a dodgy Windows Update that installed an Intel IDE driver that borked a load of Dell Optiplexes, but that was a really machine specific issue.

But I happen to believe it's possessed by Satan.....and all unfalsifiable notions have an equal claim to being true....don't they?

Go to it and good luck, but I'd start by confirming the drives are good or bad (try in another machine run disk diags etc), then running memtest (yes, I know the problems manifest with IDE drives, but I have seen dodgy RAM produce read errors and things), and any diags you can for the board itself.

[JPreston]

According to your beliefs, your subordinate's beliefs were idiotic, so you were quite justified in ridiculing and belittling him.

Again, not him, but his beliefs.

Of course, that's precisely what you did to your subordinate, though, isn't it? You set your beliefs above his, and expecting him to laugh along as you ridiculed and mocked his.

no, he could say what he wants about my beliefs, anyone can. Because I am not arbitrarily setting my beliefs as being above question, or expecting anyone to agree with that. It's the complete opposite then, isn't it?

Of course, what you define as scrutiny effectively means "must pass a test based on an assumption that I am right and it is wrong"...

No, what I define as scrutiny is actually looking at what you set yourself up to believe. For example, as a christian you will (presumably) believe that any man whose testicles have been crushed will go to hell (Deuteronomy 23:1), that you can find out if your wife has cheated on you by having the priest make her drink holy water and dust (Numbers 5:17), that Jacob had a big fight with god one night - Gracie vs Sakuraba style (Genesis 32:24) etc etc. Now you can be like fuddam and say "Yes, JPreston, all of those things happened exactly as described right there" and you would at least be consistent (inconsistencies within the bible notwithstanding).

But claiming that your beliefs are worthy enough to command deference in others because you don't believe those bits over there, but you absolutely believe these bits over here, and this particularly interpretation of that bit, and so on - that's not going to hold any water (holy or otherwise) with anyone else. You'd just be contorting yourself into a game of theological twister trying to avoid facing the fact that really you're making it up as you go along. So either you are faced with a long procession of progressively more and more ridiculous beliefs, or you really have to make it up on the spot. And both of those situations is (and should be) a rich vein of comedy

You're not supposed to put God to the test. I'm assuming that you're being jocular, however.

Well, not entirely. Maybe I should copy Emo Phillips and steal a new PC, then ask god to forgive me

Knackered motherboard is maybe it (I've still not given up on possession), though it's not overclocked or running anything particularly powerful so it's odd that it should just fall over one day. Oh well...

[nichomach]

no, he could say what he wants about my beliefs, anyone can. Because I am not arbitrarily setting my beliefs as being above question, or expecting anyone to agree with that. It's the complete opposite then, isn't it?

No, it isn't; for a start, you were in a position of secular authority, whether you want to admit it or not, and that very much affects your subordinate's freedoms. Secondly, you're assuming that you only had the option of attacking his beliefs or agreeing with them. Of course, the option to just live and let live didn't occur, did it? Did your subordinate try to convert you? Did he have a go at you over your beliefs? Don't think so. It's not about whether you agree with someone's beliefs or not; it's simply a matter of respect for and courtesy toward a person.

No, what I define as scrutiny is actually looking at what you set yourself up to believe....{load of examples filched from Old Testament}

I'm a Christian - you know there's such a thing as the New Testament, right? And you're familiar with the idea that it disposes of rather a lot of the Old Testament laws, right? Further, as noted repeatedly above, it's perfectly valid to accept that parts of the Bible are allegorical rather than literal.

But claiming that your beliefs are worthy enough to command deference in others because you don't believe those bits over there, but you absolutely believe these bits over here, and this particularly interpretation of that bit, and so on - that's not going to hold any water (holy or otherwise) with anyone else.

Because it doesn't fit with the particular straw man that you wish to erect on this occasion. Sorry, Christianity is what it is, not what you'd like it to be; a broad faith with a lot of internal debate, and a lot of differing interpretations.

You'd just be contorting yourself into a game of theological twister trying to avoid facing the fact that really you're making it up as you go along.

Nope, sorry. The understanding of scripture is not static; it never has been.

So either you are faced with a long procession of progressively more and more ridiculous beliefs, or you really have to make it up on the spot.

Again, only if Christianity is what you say it is. Which it isn't.

And both of those situations is (and should be) a rich vein of comedy

Almost as funny as watching a modern atheist attempting to turn back the clock on scriptural understanding by a millennium or so to make it fit his thesis...

Knackered motherboard is maybe it (I've still not given up on possession), though it's not overclocked or running anything particularly powerful so it's odd that it should just fall over one day. Oh well...

It does happen; that dual Athlon of mine didn't give many clues that it was about to commit seppuku until it started throwing really interesting BSODs and "failed to find device" type stuff. Of course I'm assuming that they were leaky caps - it may actually have BEEN a flock of seagulls....

[TeePee]

A millennia ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District

[nichomach]

TeePee, don't make the error of generalising from an unrepresentative sample; there's a minority of Christians that believe Genesis literally. There's a minority that believe in ID. I disagree with both of them, as do the majority of Christians.

[TeePee]

Hold on there...

Majority of christians?

Maybe in the UK, maybe not. The majority of christians in the US still firmly believe in some form of creationism and I bet close to half would disagree with the court's decision. It's a perfect example of outdated scripture which many, many christians still follow.

Just because you've rejected it as a ridiculous belief, doesn't mean everyone has. Christians pick and choose which parts of the religion to believe in, and not all agree with you.

[fuddam]

Maybe in the UK, maybe not. The majority of christians in the US still firmly believe in some form of creationism and I bet close to half would disagree with the court's decision. It's a perfect example of outdated scripture which many, many christians still follow.

Christians are united in the following: there is a creator God, who is responsible for everything. We can differ as to how literal certain parts of Genesis are, but ALL are ultimately creationists, even if it's just referring to the big bang

Christians pick and choose which parts of the religion to believe in

simply not true. I can go to any Christian church in the world and pray, since we are united on the fundamentals: who Christ is, who God is and His relationship to us, why Christ died, etc

usually called the Apostles Creed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed

the various demoninations differ on details, due to interpretation, but as mentioned before, that is acceptable since no human is the absolute authority on the word of God.

the creed was created to refute certain gnostic heresies that had started to emerge in the early church. it is useful, for example, in illustrating how a body like the Jehovahs Witnesses are not Christian - in some parts of the world, JWs, Mormons & Christians get lumped together out of ignorance.

[fuddam]

Let me give you the abstract.

1)
Christianity - Earth 6000 years old, fosils there 'to fool us'. Implausible, evidence to contrary.

as this thread has repeatedly demonstrated, not all Christians believe this notion. You're just being argumentative I would venture.

2)
Christianity - Very inconsistent. Bible a mass of contradictions. Followers pick and choose what they believe.

not true in any aspect. Ignorance is bliss, it would appear, esp in regard to contradictions.
my previous post explains the consistency of belief across Christianity

3)
The Pope. Former Hitler Youth.
Jesus. Evidence strongly suggests he was ficticious/allegorical.

Christ is the head, not the pope. and we've both been to this idea many times on this forum, the idea that Christ is fictitious. no point in rehashing it here.

4)
Massively selfish. It's about protecting and helping one's own group while persecuting outsiders.

hahahahaha. gotta laugh at that one.
Name one belief system of any kind, secular or non, that comes close to the message and love of Christianity. Free forgiveness (ie not earned), loving one's enemies, spreading a message of love to all humankind, a God who dies for his creation, and would do so even if there were just a single member of creation.

5)
Christianity -
To 'accept christ' to save you from hell when you die.

to accept the love of the Creator, in order to be fully human, and spend eternity in paradise with Him. Lurve, lurve, lurve. And to prevent any member of that creation from being separated from that perfect love - sounds good to me.
I want you to have absolute joy, peace and love (which is only attainable through a relationship with the being that created and dispenses it) - you prefer discontent? strange....

6)
Christianity -
The religion is in some ways. Some people have a gift of 'tongues' and some don't. Some churches are, some aren't. It depends on interpretation.

go back to the scripture, always. elitist? absolutely not. spiritual gifts are for ALL christians - just because not all people get the same gifting is in no way elitist

7)
Christianity -
Worse. You can be a great person, kind and generous, but if you don't follow the religion, you go to hell.

- your definition of great is entirely subjective
- all humans are flawed, so no matter how 'great' they appear, they sin all the time, repeatedly
- all humans are granted free emancipation of sin, if they want it
- hell is to not be with God
- if you choose not to be with God, your choice is respected

Christianity wins on all counts

[fuddam]

The more I read Teepee's postings, the more I'm convinced he's a modern day version of Saul / Paul, pre a Damascus road experience.

Hehehehehe.

love and hate are opposite sides of the coin.......

Teepee: you fiercely defend your intellect, and refuse to accept anything that would require you to compromise it. Same goes for JPreston, I would assume.

Christianity absolutely agrees with that stand.

It would be completely inconsistent if God created you, gave you intelligence, and then expected you to abdicate it when you believe in Him.

It just appears that your view of it is so compromised that it appears to be a poison. Don't worry, there is an antidote, if you ever want to look into it.

[Byatt]

Hold on there...

Majority of christians?

Maybe in the UK, maybe not.

The majority of christians in the US still firmly believe in some form of creationism and I bet close to half would disagree with the court's decision. It's a perfect example of outdated scripture which many, many christians still follow.

Just because you've rejected it as a ridiculous belief, doesn't mean everyone has. Christians pick and choose which parts of the religion to believe in, and not all agree with you.

In the UK? ID/Young earthers are thankfully massively in the minority (and, as a godless individual without a moral compass, I will ensure the trend is downward, ).

If you're talking about 'some form' of creation, then your US stance is accurate, if you're on about a literal interpretation of Genesis then I'd like to see a citation, please, last time I checked the fundies were outnumbered at least 2:1 in the US, they just tend to shout stupidly loudly.

[G4Z]

It would be completely inconsistent if God created you, gave you intelligence, and then expected you to abdicate it when you believe in Him.

That is a very insightful comment really, if you were to follow it through to its logical conclusion with the application of some rational thinking you would inevitably come to the same athiest view point as me.

[TeePee]

It's a shame we don't have a scientologist here, because I'm sure they'd do a similar job of defending their religion from my criticism. You may disagree with my criticism of your own religion all you like, but you haven't shown me how it's different, or any more valid, than scientology.

Why would I compromise my intellect, as so many smart christians do, for the sake of religion. With intellet comes an understanding of logic, evidence and reasoned argument. This is why many studies of religiousity and intelligence show an inverse relationship.

If christians would only apply their intellect to their religion, objectively...

[Bazzlad]

Let's turn the tables.

TeePee - you're a scientist.

Prove to me Gravity exists.
You only have the words of an old book written by a flawed person, constantly contradicted and argued against by others. Prove it exists.

If you can't. Which you can't, then it invalidates a lot of theories and scientific "facts" based on it.

So now in true TeePee style I get to belittle you, because you believe in something which you can't prove.

Hahah. Watch out for falling apples.