[chris]

Hi Neil

don't neglect to realise the importance of someone who asks a lot of questions - if no one asks anything, we'd have nothing to answer ! Thanks for your input.

Chris

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx

[neilep]

Hi Donnah, thanks for that....I suppose I should have phrased it as Academic credentials eh ?....and thanks too Chris....I soon realised after posting my comment the very thing you mentioned and I appreciate your comment.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[christianchick]

Well hi don't feel old everyone is welcome here[]

Almighty most holy GOD faithful to the ages, almighty most holy Lord, you are faithful faithful(song)

[Quantumcat]

In France it's against the law to show any religous or political signs. Your signature makes me shudder a tiny bit everytime I read it, lol

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!

[neilep]

...I agree with Erin, and besides...Im not too sure about the tone of your red font !!!! , but I'll defend your right to display it so.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Quantumcat]

Yeah, you have every right to have your sig like that, it just makes some people feel a few negative feelings towards you.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!

[neilep]

It is a little provocative on a site like this, it's like you're throwing the cat amongst the pigeons. You must know that a sig like that would generate a particular type of response, it's like me saying 'God does not exist, Science is the way, God is irrational, illogical and invented by the insecure' on a site devoted to God, it's gonna generate a whole lot of flack, and with respect, would probably not be as accepted as you are here.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[MayoFlyFarmer]

I disagree neil.  This is a scientific forum not an anti-christian forum, and I think its been all but decided on a different thread that the two are not mutually exclusive.  So for your example to be relevant you have to say you'd be putting that sig on HERE not a christian site.  In that case you are right that your two signatures would be equally provocative (because they show a strong point of view about an unrelated issue).  
However, I see one key difference in a "God-loving" display and a "God-bashing" display.  C-chick's intentions in putting her signature up are purely for your good.  Whether you view them as hostile twards your beliefs SHE is doing it because SHE believes it is the best thing for you to see.  When you counter her you are doing it to hurt those that would be offended by your message.  You could make the agruement that you are spreading that message for other people's good, but I have a really hard time believeing that those are your true intentions.


Yar, the flies be everywhere!!!

[neilep]

....Justin, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree .......I have mentioned previously that I would defend anybodys right (including christianchick of course)to put their point of view over and I concur that christianchick feels that she is promoting her beliefs because she believes it's best for me. I wonder how many other circumstances (good or bad) have been created because someone felt they were doing/promoting a belief due to the fact that they felt it was for our best. We can't always use 'good intentions' as a defence every time.

And I'm not 'god bashing' either.......sometimes such 'in your face' displays can be provocative.

I have found far more flexibility and openeness in mind in the scientific commnunity than ever could be found in the fundamental judgemental beliefs of the religious.......but that's MY opinion, based on discussion and historical experience.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[MayoFlyFarmer]

mmmmm.....   I am fine with disagreeing to agree (whoops got that backwards, but I'll leav it in cause I like it).  But I actually agree with everything you just said there, so I might need you to clarify where exactly our disagreement comes in.  
I'm glad you put in the part about good intentions (something I meant to mention in my post but forgot).  I will definately say that good intentions are quite possibly the most dangerous thing in the world.  However (and this might be one of those areas that lots of peopel disagree with me) to me, intentions are still very important.  I have a lot easier time sympathizing with someone who does wrong with good intentions, than someone who does good with malicious initentions.  But then again I got THAT from my own personal belief system, and thats the whole thing we are trying to dispute here. So... yeah... I dunno.
I always have a hard time debating on this issue, because while I disgree with the actions of "pushy religious people, I do know why they do it, and  it pains me to see people jump all over them about it.

Yar, the flies be everywhere maty....save yerselves!!!

[neilep]

we're not disputing, we're not even having a heated debate, I would call it a discussion. As far as agreeable dissagreements......I can't begin to fathom it.....you disagreed with my original post...therefore the fact that you disagree means that I also disagree too....!!! 'Y'know what Justin ?..I'm gonna stop there about the agree/disagree thing.It's 'done me head in Guvna' !!....[]

I don't see how we could get anything done at all without intentions, we need them, where is the challenge without them ? I agree...(uh oh..agree/dissagree mode) at least people who do wrong with good intentions are in general good people, while the other with bad intentions would indicate that a positive outcome from an action done by a person with bad intentions must be an accident yes ? just a happenstance.

I see your point about jumping on 'pushy religious people' I really do....it's just that albeit with good intentions(in their opinion)....the inflexibility  for religious people to yield ,at the very least accept that they might be wrong can be frustrating. I suppose what I think I'm trying to say is that from a scientist point of view it's irritating when you believe you have complete empirical data and facts, that someone continues to deny those findings by using supernatural excuses......

Is that what I'm trying to say ?....i havent got a clue.....!! I think I've taken a stroll down Tangent Avenue or something.[)][:I]

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[MayoFlyFarmer]

I'll agree to agree with that. [8D]
One more pooint that I just thought of though.  One reason why "religious people" seem so inflexible on their views.  Comes from the fact that to them what they believe is an absoule undisputed (well I guess not undisputed, but you know what I'm getting at) truth.  And the person with the best faith is the person that has absolutly no doubts about this.  Where as in science, the best scientist is the one that is ever aware that in essence we know nothing.  Even our best supported theories, and even things that we acll "laws" are only theories (often with a great deal of empirical evidence to support them), but that they can be proven wrong at any time.  I think that the lack of understanding of this core difference in though is what drives a lot of the frustration between the two groups.
OOPS I just made a big no no in my book, but I'll leave it in there so everyone can see it.  I hate it when people put science and religion as competing opposites as I just did by saying "these two groups".  The true opposite of religion is anti-religous groups.  The true opposite of science is....hmmm.... theres a good question what would be the term (is there one?) for a person who is against science??  Anyways, I have never once in my life encountered anyting in science counterdicts anything that I believe in because of my religious faith, so I am a firm believer that the two aren't mutaully exclusice.
Wow!  this post was orriginally going to be 6 words long! [:p]

Yar, the flies be everywhere maty....save yerselves!!!

[Donnah]

Intent is powerful.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

"powerful it is indeed, mmmmhmmhmmm"  *in Yoda voice*

Cut me some slack I'm new around here!

[neilep]

"powerful it is indeed, mmmmhmmhmmm"  *in Yoda voice*

Cut me some slack I'm new around here!

OK...consider your slack cut !!  []

[Seany]

YAyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Hello Chris, welcome to the forum! []

Sorry, I may have missed this thread..

[neilep]

YAyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Hello Chris, welcome to the forum! []

Sorry, I may have missed this thread..

Ewe missed it chum because it was started in 2004 !! []

[neilep]

...and the thread starter only posted 14 posts !  []...I guess he must be a very slow typist !! []

[Karen W.]

who's Chris.... in this thread?