Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

You don't need to it's coming across very clearly. And it really doesn't matter whether you believe in a God or not, but you're not open minded and your flippancy evidences that.

[double negative btw, Freudian slip?]

 

I'd just like to make a general point that isn't aimed at either side of the debate here.
I keep reading the phrase "open mind".
An "open mind", to me, is a mind that is open to considering and examining new ideas, or new evidence on old ideas. It isn't one that uncritically embraces new ideas, and I think it is wrong to accuse anyone of not having an open mind because they have an established opinion based on their previous musings.
Once you've given thought to a question and come to a conclusion, that conclusion would only be re-examined in the light of some new argument and not by the reiteration of an old one.

 

Very true, Saint. I've often heard people use 'open mind' in a way that suggests 'must agree with me!'. It puts me in mind of two quotes regarding having an open mind: one humorous and one salutary.

[paraphrasing] "You should have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out" -- (not sure I'll just check) Debateable origin but most likely Max Radin (1937)

"Now there sits a man with an open mind ... You can feel the draught from here!" - Groucho Marx

 

First I'd like to apologise to DD for my last post, reading it back it has a tone or attitude I never intended, so sorry for that.

Secondly my remarks about DD having an open mind are specifically about having an open mind on this topic - I acknowledge it's possible to be open minded on some issues and not others, in fact that's usually how it works since we all have core values that we cling to and can't be persuaded away from for example I don't steal and nobody could put forward an argument that would make me reconsider that.

DD's first comment after my assertion about all life being a miracle was to throw into the mix a terrible illness with the sarcastic inference that it, as a living thing, would also come under the miracle tag. He has since made other disparaging remarks about religion/God, [which don't offend me in any way as this is an adult discussion] culminating in his assertion 'anyway I have an open mind ...' when clearly he doesn't in this topic. Sorry if I have offended him or anyone else, I never meant to.

 

I agree with most of this. However I always think an open mind is manifested by questioning the opponent's view and not ranting about your own- not accusing anyone here. I don't think an open mind replaces it's own ideas for someone else's, that's a weak mind. I also think once you have 'established your opinion' then you don't have an open mind - by definition. That's not to say a closed mind stays closed either.

 

There's a saying that 'old age is when a broad mind and a narrow waist exchange places'.

It's a good joke and like all jokes it has a kernel of truth about it. Hopefully, I've not yet reached that particular definition of 'old age', but at 36 I must be a handful of kebabs and a blow to the head away from it.

 

I'm almost there.

 

Of course I'm not offended. I am grateful that we live in a time and place that I'm not burned at the stake for having an alternative view, which is no thanks to organised religion nor God. And, whilst not meant to be offensive, but certainly intended to provoke, I don't change my standpoint that if human life is a 'miracle', then so are viruses, illnesses and germs. Whilst we're all entitled to our opinions, I reserve the right to treat with contempt the idea that a wonderful God designed 'miracle' human beings, but had no hand in diseases such as cancer.

Again though, your opinions and mine are just that - opinions. I repeat that I am grateful for the fact that, unlike difficult cynics or agnostics through the ages (or indeed some poor enquiring, questioning minds even nowadays in the third world and in Islamic countries in particular) that I'm allowed to voice my heretic views. Had Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Erasmus et al not been allowed/determined to question the religious orthodoxy there would have been no reformation, nor a need for the Roman catholic church to eventually progress. Organised religion needs to constantly evolve, and even people of faith should accept that the world view of Middle-east tribes in the Bronze Age shouldn't be a basis for a belief system. Or they should at least accept it has no more validity than any other ancient myths.

Edit: I DO have an open mind as to the existence of some sort of being/entity that is beyond my comprehension. I just haven't seen any evidence for 'it', nor can accept that that 'it' created life and the universe because we can't-yet- fully explain what did. Such thinking was why cavemen made the sun, moon, rivers, mountains, etc gods, and doubtless anyone who questioned that offended the believers too (and were promptly stoned to death,).

Jehovah, Jehovah!

 

like to think i am open minded about things, reason i question things is because so far i have not been persuaded one way or the other, so have no opinion of my own to enforce.

i like to challenge peoples thinking, only conclusion so far i have come up with is religion is based on faith, and how do you go about diss proving or challenging some ones faith, and at the same time without being insulting? although like i said i have not seen the answer either way to prove or disprove.

i did a psychology course years ago and a women was talking about things and she used her own experiences as a prejudice and labelled everyone in that category the same which was wrong, each should be judged on their own merits but she judged on her own experiences.

maybe this is all like psychology in a way, where there is no right and wrong answer.

 

I can't imagine a world where we all agree on everything. I think we choose life partners based on shared interests but also with some sort of challenge thrown in, I'm not talking about marrying a drug addict hoping to change them here, but someone who presents a good sounding board, who has their own mind and will challenge certain behaviours or views you hold in a way that makes you grow as an individual and also as a couple. To be with someone who agreed with you about everything would be boring and stunting [or maybe that's just me ].

I think you can challenge a person's faith without being insulting, it's about word choice and attitude. I've read some of the comments on religious articles that you find on say the Guardian website. There are those who will say 'so does this magician live in lala land with the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy?' and others who will say 'why would a God let there be war?' - can you see the difference? I'm not offended by the first question but it does show a lack of respect for other's views. I find it hard to be offended actually on the subject, people being flippant says more about them than you or the subject in question.

Are we offended when people call LFC all the four letter words they can think of - no [speaking for myself]. But mock the loss of life at a football game and I'm very offended. Muslims were more than offended with that cartoon, years ago, with the turban depicted as a bomb and I can see why some would be, others may have laughed but to a devout Muslim it was disrespectful. No need to want to kill the artist though, that was an over reaction imo.

The best way to convert someone to your way of thinking [if that's what a person wants to do] is to live by example.

 

Think more people should read Jesus and Mo and NOT get offended. It challenges orthodoxy, and if people's faith can't take being questioned it isn't faith so much as blind ignorance. For instance, I think the greatest human achievement has been the moon-landings, but I'm not 'offended' that sceptics and conspiracy-theorists challenge, and even mock it. They're wrong and I'll argue the facts with them, but fundamentally they're free to think and write what they want, and the very fact they say that neither undermines my belief nor offends me.

Faith, a robust, deep faith anyway, should be tested and challenged, as should science and any other viewpoint. Socratic irony and Popper's critical reasoning and all that. I wonder if this God chap (is that less offensive than 'dude'?) does exist and so does the afterlife, does he greet the believers with "Welcome to Heaven - why did you believe in me?": "Er, because my parents and the church told me to..". Surely he must ask "Why did I give you an enquiring mind and reasoning then, if you were just going to believe what you've been told without question?".

Science and our understanding of the universe, and indeed society's beliefs and standards, are rightly constantly subject to review and challenge. So should all belief systems.

 

There's one thing nearly everyone on here agrees with. We all love Liverpool FC

 

wtf are they doing on here if they don't, and why?

 

Mancs, chavs and selected other wumming ****s

 

thought you was on about people who claimed they supported lfc, just confused why you wouldn't love lfc.

 

You've pretty much outlined there what I 've said about my faith in previous posts, until it's tested, it's not worth much. And that's probably why I don't take offence at opposing views, it runs deep in me and I have no fear about it being easily snatched away.

As for 'dude' you can write what you like, it indicated to me your irreverence for the 'being', which touches me not but also didn't back up your claims of being undecided. It looked like you'd already decided wasn't worth just a God title on it's own but you had to qualify it somehow like someone would say 'so this Queen Elizabeth fool ....' which shows how you see the 'person' no matter what words follow.

Challenging belief systems is good as long as it's the belief system and not the believer that's being challenged. [That's what annoys me more than anything on here, the unnecessary personal attacks. Challenge the opinion by all means, that's what this forum exists for, but leave the personal abuse out. Not talking about the accepted comedic put downs between the old hands on our board, there's no malice intended in them!

 

.

 

Again I say, the fourth time, but just for clarity, I'm NOT undecided about God the 'creator', but I have an open mind whether A God beyond my comprehension exists. Sorry, but I don't apologise(!) if that offends people.

 

been too many gods of one type or another for me to make sense of what the meaning of the word god actually means.

 

More "anti-science" for RHC

Voyager and IBEX data totally at odds with heliospheric theory, according to NASA, explanation exists in Electric theory though.

Now if NASA are saying the data is at odds with their theories then does that still mean saying current theory is wrong is anti science?
[video=youtube;ZBsyzYFjpig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBsyzYFjpig&feature=player_detailpage[/video]


We know little to nothing about our own sun yet profess to have knowledge things much further afield