SFReader.com : Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Book Reviews & more      SFWatcher.com : Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Movie Review



  Home | Log In | Register | Calendar | Search | Help
   
SFReader Forums > SFReader > Anything Goes! > Math Proves Christ's Resurrection?  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
125 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4  5 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/29/2008 6:42 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Swashbuckler said...

But I won't apologize
      I didn't think you would.
 
     My argument was always and only that I thought it improbable someone of that kind of background would put out the kind of hyper-obvious gaff Tony posted.
 
 What transpired in the direction of the argument after that isn't really anything anyone should be proud of. But I do not expect you to apologize for bad math. Some of the other stuff... it might be a nice gesture. But that's only my take, not a mandate.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

darkbow
Rabbit lord



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1574
 
   Posted 3/29/2008 7:35 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Following this thread, and several others, the question I really want to ask is:

Why do certain segments of the Christian collective deem it necessary to try and prove ANY of their beliefs scientifically and/or mathematically?

In this day and age, it's not likely they're going to gain converts through this method. So, they're just preaching to the choir, almost literally. If it's simply a matter of making themselves feel better emotionally by trying to prove to the rest of the world that they're on the right path spiritually ... well, I find that kind of silly. But that's just me.

And I say this as someone who has much trust in Jesus, though I don't consider myself a Christian in a traditional sense.


"Steven Spielberg and The Magic Box" upcoming at The Ranfurly Review.
"Peter Piker the Pankin Man" upcoming at Big Pulp
"Walking Between the Rain"
at Every Day Fiction
"Beneath a Persian Sun" upcoming in Carnivah House's "Infinity Swords" anthology
"Deep in the Land of the Ice and Snow" in "The Return of the Sword" anthology
"Hot Off the Press" Ray Gun Revival #25, 2007
 
Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/29/2008 7:58 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
darkbow said...
Following this thread, and several others, the question I really want to ask is: Why do certain segments of the Christian collective deem it necessary to try and prove ANY of their beliefs scientifically and/or mathematically?
      I'm perhaps a little nondemoninational in the generic to speak for the Christian collective, but I'm not sure who else would answer so...I suppose the reasons would be as varied as the curious. Off the top of my head I would say there are several camps, and then people within those camps to various or over lapping degrees.
 
There are those I'm sure who want to have proof positive for the nonbelievers to further gain converts.
 
There are those who would like to have it as an arrow in their quiver against proactive attacks by atheists. --I would wager that very few people who've been cornered about their faith experiences by an aggressive nonbeliever *haven't* encountered a "prove it" response in some form or another.
 
Also, and this is under the "ah, come on" school of common sense--there's a world of defference between "bearing witness" to something and showing it to a jury after its emerged from the FBI's CSI lab. ---with a handicap by theoretical mathematics falling somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. It would change the world on a very fundamental level.
 
And I would guess for a great many people it's simply that point where theology, philosphy and science in its purest abstract form fall into convergence; people ask "why" and they ask "how" as a matter of being human, they are curious.
 
That's not an exhaustive list, just off the top of my head but I imagine a great many people curious as to if science and faith can intersect fall in there somewhere.
 
 


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/29/2008 8:25 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

I forgot to point out, in the specific case of Swinburne--it's his job. He goes to work at Oxford everyday to earn his dinars by contemplating these questions and others like them and telling people what his big brain comes up with.

So he might be writing it only for a captured choir, his students, or a more general choir, the faithful, or merely because if he wants to keep tenure he needs to publish some Deep Thoughts.

But in Swinburne's case (and ?'s of his own faith quite aside) he was paid to do so--to one degree or another.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

darkbow
Rabbit lord



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1574
 
   Posted 3/29/2008 8:32 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Yeah, Swinburne I can understand because, as nathan said, it's his profession. I can also see people being interested for intellectual discussion.


"Steven Spielberg and The Magic Box" upcoming at The Ranfurly Review.
"Peter Piker the Pankin Man" upcoming at Big Pulp
"Walking Between the Rain"
at Every Day Fiction
"Beneath a Persian Sun" upcoming in Carnivah House's "Infinity Swords" anthology
"Deep in the Land of the Ice and Snow" in "The Return of the Sword" anthology
"Hot Off the Press" Ray Gun Revival #25, 2007
 
Back to Top
 

Anthony G Williams
Greybeard



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 396
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 3:52 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Nathan, I would also be interested in a copy of that lecture.
 
You are right, I am guilty of assuming that an article I was sent about the prof's views represented them accurately. Evidently they didn't. But I agree with Steve's post above. Some organisations are unscrupulous about selecting and twisting facts to suit their own ends, and publicising the result in order to mislead people. It's important to challenge that whenever we see it.


Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/ >>


Back to Top
 

Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 4:53 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Anthony: It may not have been unscrupulous selecting and twisting of facts by the Christian web press. It may have just been just plain dumb selecting and twisting of facts by the Christian web press. It would not surprise me if someone reading about Swinburne's work or hearing the lecture Swinburne sent Nathan simply did not have the mental chops to understand what was being said. That 97 percent figure stood out to them, seemed to validate something they really want to have validated, and so maybe they just ran with it.

Or, maybe they did twist it for evil deceptive purposes. I dunno.

Nathan: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "some of the other stuff." I'm guessing you mean my Beowulf analogy, since you tried to veer discussion toward Schroedinger's Cat and seemed to think the use of a fictional character was somehow dismissive of the whole god idea. If that's what you mean, I can only say this: My Beowulf analogy was aimed at the math and logic we were discussing, not the notion of God or anyone's religious beliefs (the same goes for Jordan's two-headed chicken thing, after which you said you thought he was equating the god experience with a two-headed chicken. And the same goes for the very start of this thread, in which Anthony merely pointed out some bad math and you took it as him mocking and attacking faith in general. He did nothing of the kind.).

You do that all the time -- someone uses an analogy to discuss one thing, and you take it as them peeing all over something millions of people hold dear. You've done it to me more than once. If my Beowulf analogy/vampire bat analogy offended you, it's because you saw them as aimed at god when they weren't; they were aimed at the premises and math we were discussing.

And why is Beowulf or a two-headed chicken somehow offensive and dismissive, but a maybe-dead-maybe-not cat in a box isn't? I don't get it.

Perhaps by "other stuff" you mean my suggestions that you go back and read the fallacy web site again. Those were probably a bit under the belt, but, hey, you dish out similar stuff so I don't feel too bad about it.


Steve Goble

Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories.

Back to Top
 

Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 6:05 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Ty: Interesting question about why some people want science or math to prove their faith, while others aren't concerned about that at all. Nathan's answer covered most of those bases, I think.

Another reason, for some, would be to push a political agenda. It helps if you have stuff that sounds like facts -- and it doesn't really matter if they are facts, just so long as they sound like facts. I don't think that was the case with Swinburne; the lecture Nathan sent me didn't have any political overtones. It was just a guy thinking hard about his faith and discussing it.

The political agenda might explain why some in the Christian press turned Swinburne's work into a bottle of snake oil -- professor's math proves our religion is correct! That's good stuff to have on your side when you talk to Joe Average Voter. Although, honestly, I think it's just as likely that the person who attempted to summarize Swinburne's work didn't understand it at all.

One other thing that might explain why some people want math and science to validate their religious views is that they are trying to convince themselves of things they are beginning to doubt but are afraid to accept as untrue. That doesn't apply to all, or even most, but I think it applies to some. If they think math or science has proven their views correct, they can hang onto them that much longer.

And, of course, there are a lot of bright people who are just incredibly curious and love to think out loud about all sorts of stuff and analyze it and try to fuse the whole science/math/religion thing together in an honest attempt to Figure It All Out.


Steve Goble

Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories.

Back to Top
 

Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 6:11 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Oh ... about Schrody's cat: My corollary theorum is this -- the longer you wait to open that box, the greater the odds are of finding a dead cat.

I hasten to add that, while I'm no fan of cats, I've never tried to prove my theorum by locking cats into boxes. So please, if anyone in here belongs to PETA, it was a joke. Honest.


Steve Goble

Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories.

Back to Top
 

H.P. Lovesauce
Necronomicondiment



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jul 2007
Total Posts : 574
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 9:35 AM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I'll postulate another political position possibility: that in a society that is still dominated by a scientific worldview, some people of faith try to give their beliefs a rational underpinning so they don't look like credulous boobs.
Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 12:47 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
nathan said...
Swashbuckler said...
 
I wont apologize
I didn't think you would.
We can leave it at that.
 
No need to chase each across a thread bouncing posts back and forth. I think that if we both distilled down what we thought was revealed in this thread, in its totality and using the full spectrum of posts we'd come up with 180-degree diferent revelations.
 
How often do you find good natured capitulation to someone's point on the internet anyway? It exists but in the end we're more likely to be chasing our own tails.
 
Plus, from the nature of the examples you offered up that you thought I "wanted" an apology for, I think we're typing past each other--with one exception I'll tag in its own post below.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 1:06 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Nathan said...
Swashbuckler said...
Nathan: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "some of the other stuff." I'm guessing you mean my Beowulf analogy, since you tried to veer discussion toward Schroedinger's Cat and seemed to think the use of a fictional character was somehow dismissive of the whole god idea. If that's what you mean, I can only say this: My Beowulf analogy was aimed at the math and logic we were discussing, not the notion of God or anyone's religious beliefs (the same goes for Jordan's two-headed chicken thing, after which you said you thought he was equating the god experience with a two-headed chicken. And the same goes for the very start of this thread, in which Anthony merely pointed out some bad math and you took it as him mocking and attacking faith in general. He did nothing of the kind.).

You do that all the time -- someone uses an analogy to discuss one thing, and you take it as them peeing all over something millions of people hold dear. You've done it to me more than once. If my Beowulf analogy/vampire bat analogy offended you, it's because you saw them as aimed at god when they weren't; they were aimed at the premises and math we were discussing.

And why is Beowulf or a two-headed chicken somehow offensive and dismissive, but a maybe-dead-maybe-not cat in a box isn't? I don't get it.
 
 

But mostly I used the Cat because it is a well known thought experiment .

I wrote that because I didn't want literary characters, vampires, tooth fairy's and pink fuzzy unicorns (whichever, pick one) substituted for the human god experience in the discourse.

If we treat the variable of the god experience in our language like a thought experiment or the equation "X" then there is a vast difference in approach and respect while still having the fundamental starting point of "intangible".

By using silly or humorous analogies you are prepping the "battlefield" by using backhanded ridicule to prep the langauge--so I was hoping to change the nature of inserting god into a math problem to that of X or a thought experiment--rather than that of, say, cartoon characters.

I don't think your reply really addressed my points. It seems like the willful use of Plausible Denial to defend  backhanded or passive-aggressive langauge.
I don't for one minute think you "don't get it," Steve. Look how quickly you whipped through that bone dry lecture. You understand language and its myriad uses both overt and subtle.
But, also--don't meld this one in with the apology posts. It's quite seperate. I don't think for one second you owe me an apology for this. I would consider it a great, gentlemanly favor if in such discussions the character's of your analogys possessed some intrinsic dignity, such as 'integer X' or 'thought experiment' (for example only) rather than the ones I've seen offered up by a variety of people across several threads.
But that's just something I'd appreciate.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 1:18 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Swashbuckler said...
. And the same goes for the very start of this thread, in which Anthony merely pointed out some bad math and you took it as him mocking and attacking faith in general. He did nothing of the kind.).
     Steve this explains your 0-to-60 reponse on the first page?
     What? I said Tony has posted/started a few threads involving faith in one manner or another. I also said I found the general thrust of the base positions in those post not to be very...diverse--but it was meant as a humorous observation thus the "lol". He wanted a discussion or he wouldn't have posted--I was teasing and used txt type to show so.
 
My entire argument in this thread (Schrody's cat hijack aside) was always and only that I thought it *unlikely* Swinburne, given his credentials, would make such an obvious equation construction mistake.
 
My arguments have not been about faith at all. I don't defend his ultimate conclusion, you'll note.
 
I think you maybe be projecting something else onto me.
This maybe why I can apologize in twice in such an off hand manner in this thread--we're looking at this whole experience as being "about" different things. (again the Schrodey's cat hijack aside).
 
Come out from the fortifications Steve. This was a friendly wrastlin' match not hand-2-hand.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

Jordan Lapp
ppaL nadroJ



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2530
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 5:40 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Sorry about the two headed chicken comment, but Swinburne's math (as presented) was ludicrous, so I put forth a ludicrous example to attack the math in the post, not God.


Jordan Lapp
Managing Editor
Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 6:00 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Jordon I believe you meant to equate the 2-headed chicken with the faulty equation attributed to Swinburne--and not that "to science and/or math faith experience is held in the same regard as a two headed chicken.[subtle snicker inferred but not explicit as part of the package]"

It was nice of you to post this. And on the plus side we got to see a picture of a 2-headed chicken. Those oppurtunities just don't come around often enough, even on a SF board.

I would like to see a link to some of Lovesauce's credulous boobs but I think Dave frowns on that. On second thought I think I meant incredulous boobs.



VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1227
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 6:49 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Nathan: I explained my rapid series of posts -- I was trying to get a few thoughts out there before I had to start paying attention to my job.

And, yes, I understand language fairly well. And no, I don't see how using literary or mythical creatures in an analogy to shred a bad logical or mathematical argument is somehow undignified, or is an assault on someone's faith, or whatever. Sorry.


Steve Goble

Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories.

Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 7:06 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Nathan said...
Swashbuckler said...

Sorry.

  I don't think for one second you owe me an apology for this. I would consider it a great, gentlemanly favor if in such discussions the character of your analogys possessed some intrinsic dignity, such as 'integer X' or 'thought experiment' (for example only) rather than the ones I've seen offered up by a variety of people across several threads.
But that's just something I'd appreciate.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 7:38 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Swashbuckler said...
. And no, I don't see how using literary or mythical creatures in an analogy to shred a bad logical or mathematical argument is somehow undignified, or is an assault on someone's faith, or whatever.

Steve I think might have been unfair to you. If so I apologize. I should, in the lack of other evidence, certainly take you at your word. Let me explain a few things and show you how you can apply them to your own writing. Let’s start with the basics.

Analogy: 1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand

Metaphor: 1. implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake

Simile: figurative language drawing comparison: a figure of speech that draws a comparison between two different things, especially a phrase containing the word "like" or "as," e.g. "as white as a sheet"

Now as a writer you can use these things in a couple of different ways. You can use them as one offs (“the bomb went off like a volcano”).

In addition you can also use a series of related analogies/metaphors/similes to create a ‘mood’ or ‘atmosphere’ . For instance; if you wanted to create a mood of tension in a scene you might use a series of analogies/metaphors/similes invoking death: cropse, graveyard, dirge, skull, etc. If you wanted to create that ‘mood’ of tension you would *not* use analogies/metaphors/similes that invoke, say, a children’s party: cake, silly clowns, the happy birthday song, etc.

Now I am surprised that you didn’t know this already ‘cause I’ve always enjoyed your writing--but in the end I’m just glad we could shift away from all this heavy thought stuff and BS a little about our mutual love of prose.


VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
 
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

Back to Top
 

Anthony G Williams
Greybeard



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 396
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 10:35 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Swashbuckler said...
Anthony: It may not have been unscrupulous selecting and twisting of facts by the Christian web press. It may have just been just plain dumb selecting and twisting of facts by the Christian web press. It would not surprise me if someone reading about Swinburne's work or hearing the lecture Swinburne sent Nathan simply did not have the mental chops to understand what was being said. That 97 percent figure stood out to them, seemed to validate something they really want to have validated, and so maybe they just ran with it.

Or, maybe they did twist it for evil deceptive purposes. I dunno.

 

"That 97 percent figure stood out to them, seemed to validate something they really want to have validated, and so maybe they just ran with it."
 
That sounds very plausible to me. However, without wishing to reopen an old debate, some of those fundamentalist Christians promoting a scientific basis for their beliefs (i.e. "Intelligent Design") have deliberately set out to deceive.

 


Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/ >>


Back to Top
 

Jordan Lapp
ppaL nadroJ



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2530
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 10:40 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I'm not sure about that either, Anthony. I think that certain people can be so deluded that they honestly believe in the completly irrational, either through brainwashing from birth (see the documentary "Jesus Camp" for some scary examples of this), or sheer ignorance.

I don't think of the ID camp as sheer evil, but more like ignorance with a big microphone.


Jordan Lapp
Managing Editor
Back to Top
 

darkbow
Rabbit lord



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1574
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 10:55 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Anthony G Williams said...
... some of those fundamentalist Christians promoting a scientific basis for their beliefs (i.e. "Intelligent Design") have deliberately set out to deceive.
And none of it does them any good. They are, as I said above, preaching to the choir. Their own choir. Anyone who is a non-believer or who is a questioner is not likely to be swayed by such arguments. And someone who is already a believer ... well, the argument shouldn't be needed to sway them.
 
If it's a matter of they're just trying to sound "modern" and "scientific" so they can prove to the world they are right, then I'd suggest they stop immediately. It just makes their arguments look weak and ignorant to most who don't hold their beliefs.
 
And if it's a matter of lashing back at a secular world or religions they feel are encroaching upon them ...what I suggest is this: Since they're the faith people ... then have some. Faith, I mean.
 
My words might be a bit strong here, but I do not mean to attack Christians or Christianity in general. Heck, I'm a believer. I'm specifically talking about those who "have deliberately set out to deceive." Which is called lying. Which is a sin for Christians.


"Steven Spielberg and The Magic Box" upcoming at The Ranfurly Review.
"Peter Piker the Pankin Man" upcoming at Big Pulp
"Walking Between the Rain"
at Every Day Fiction
"Beneath a Persian Sun" upcoming in Carnivah House's "Infinity Swords" anthology
"Deep in the Land of the Ice and Snow" in "The Return of the Sword" anthology
"Hot Off the Press" Ray Gun Revival #25, 2007
 
Back to Top
 

nathan
Sage



Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailablePrivate Messaging Not AvailableAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
 
   Posted 3/30/2008 11:07 PM (GMT -4)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.</