Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  It was insulting... and it was meant to BE insulting. It wasn't intended to be anything else... regardless of what you wish me to believe.

  if your conclusions about my intentions are that fixed, let me just state mine: You have intentionally tried to draw parallels between science and religion on this thread and others to generally stirr people up, and support the conclusion (which you made very clearly on the last page!) that there is Camp A(theism), Camp R(religion) and Camp J(esus), the later being defined as what the voice you hear has to say, which is the only one you want to belong to due to the religion=science(atheism) implication.

  Responding with a joke about how you persieve evidence is, in that light, not an inappropriate response. And contrary to what you conclude, i can only state my intention was not to poke fun at your mental health (and i hate that accusation!), but how i think you apply your sceptisism unevenly. misapplied sceptisism is confirmation bias.

  Furthermore, when i provided clear evidence how you WAS (contrary to what you claim) making a comparison between science and religion, you avoided that claim. when i called you out on your avoidance you responded:

  I did not respond to your bullets, dear Bohm, for a couple reasons, the first being that I was simply tired of the back and forth between us at the time... and so didn't want to misunderstand yet again, or let my feelings about this whole thing get any further in the way and say another thing that you were going to misunderstand. So... I refrained. Secondly, I found it odd... in light of what it took to even get a response... good or bad... to MY questions. I find it even odder that you're taking an issue, in light of that, as well.

  Like i wrote, i could not answer your questions beause i am incompetent to do so.

  If you allow yourself to refuse replying to central points because i did not answer a question we all know i could not answer, well, there is no point is there?

  Unless there is something substantive to add this is what i have to say, it make little point continuing a discussion where all points have been made 2 times, we are both tired off, and where your mind is made up with respect to what i believe.

  kind wishes and all, now i am going to have a beer.
• 

  AGuest

  AGuest - if you want to be clear what you are saying say less.

  Greetings, dear Qcmbr, and peace to you! I think perhaps it depends on who I wish to be clear TO. Some here understand perfectly what I post; others don't. From my POV, I would have said, perhaps to Dr. Hawking... "I need MORE." That's the difference between me and some others. I am verbose, yes. I admit that. But if one cannot be bothered to read all that I posted in an effort to truly understand what I've stated... I kinda think that's on them. It's the same as with many other things - the Bible, scientific journals, contracts, whatever: either a person wants to read the whole thing... and will in order to try and get an understanding... or they don't and won't.

  You make loads of statements which are loaded with what if , maybe and insinuation which is why you get lots of comments back.

  Our entire world is loaded with "what ifs, maybe" and insinuation, dear one. Even science. What you're saying is what others have said for years: I/we don't like your STYLE of posting/saying what you post/say. Change it and perhaps we'll listen/get it." If I were concerned with just that faction, I would probably make more effort. But the information I receive behind the scenes is that I am perfectly understood. In this thread as well as others. AND... agreed with. That folks don't post such openly is not my fault. But I won't ask them to - I don't need a "cheering" squad, per se, and I try to always respect others' privacy.

  I gave up thinking that tact was useful on certain types of thread since it leads to imprecise comments that avoid critiquing the idea or bias behind the idea. My expectations of and delivery of respectful discussion - I'll say it again - on certain thread types is low. These threads tend to be ones where we get close to discussing a fundamental issue ( this thread was never simply about a tv show which nevertheless I think has been well chewed over). Most threads are great examples of shared empathy, shocked outrage or cheeky humour but there are some threads that are necessarily divicise and will get heated. Entering those threads while investing your personal worlview will bring yourself under the microscope, the trick is to try and avoid responding in a 'don't pick on me' manner.

  I absolutely agree, dear Q, with one exception: don't dish it out, if you can't take it. I did feel that someone was "picking" on me... and addressed it by saying "deal with YOUR issues, rather than pointing fingers at what you THINK may be mine." I don't think the one was expecting that.

  Just stay on message and let the slights and personal stuff roll.

  Yes, you're right. I should have done that. I certainly know that now. Although I DID keep trying to take it back there... as well as CLARIFY what my issues were... and why. I think, though, that it wouldn't have mattered: I made statement comparing science to religion... which I stand by still (they both DO present information to LAYPERSONS similarly). That ticked someone off. He utterly disagrees. So what? People on here disagree all the time. Unfortunately, he didn't restrict his disagreement to what I stated... but started off with insinuations about me personally. Again, I countered with "deal with YOUR issues" [rather than pointing fingers at what you THINK are mine].

  It is blowing me away that NONE of you have the cahones to say, "You know, Bohm, even if what you said was right... you DID start off with a funky response, which really wasn't necessary." Nope, can't have that happen... 'cause it's Shelby. We can pretty much say whatever we want about HER... so long as we hide it behind assertions that it's really about what she SAID." Yeah, right...

  The more you try to defend and explain yourself the more you dilute your message.

  Oh, I'm sorry, dear Q... but that's because I truly don't care any more. I have made myself as clear as possible and, again, my understanding is that more folks understood than didn't... LONG before now. Based on the comments from those who did see the show, very early on, actually.

  One of the greatest strengths and uses of an uninhibited forum is that , if you can suppress the pain of getting cherished ideas exposed and handled with disrespect , you can find better ideas or at least gain greater insight. Great thought thrives while drivel dies.

  Which is why I asked the things I did HERE. But, of course, it's always... and only... "believers" who have an ulterior motive/agenda when asking questions. Because of the WAY I communicate, I'm automatically "suspect." Which is what I said: it was because it was ME. Anyone else could have asked the same/similar questions... and all would be fine.

  To that end, I did learn something: on another thread a dear one responded to another statement by Dr. Hawking that, although paraphrased, was pretty dead on to what he said in the show. The dear one responded to the effect that his statement was "absurd"... and "how could he know?" To be honest, that really is what I was stating... and asking with MY questions... based on what was presented in the TV show. Many statements WERE absurd... and there were things which raised the question: how do you KNOW? And I even asked that.

  But again, this was never about my questions. Bohm tried to make it about him and me.... and succeeded, which IS my fault. I've had a lot of time to think about it and while I am still commenting here, I will not allow it to occur again as it was an utter waste of time and board space, IMHO.

  Please understand, dear Q: I do NOT "see" this in the way that perhaps you and a few others do. I DO see it, however, as some OTHERS do.

  So, I think we should all just agree... that we don't agree. That, as with a great many things, some people see things differently and what occurred here is one of them

  With that said, I wish you peace!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  if your conclusions about my intentions are that fixed, let me just state mine: You have intentionally tried to draw parallels between science and religion on this thread and others

  Yes, that is ABSOLUTELY true, dear Bohm (again, peace to you!). I did intentionally try to draw such parallels.

  to generally stirr people up,

  No. That is absolutely NOT true. I did NOT intend to stir ANYONE up. I only intended to state what *I* "saw", how *I* viewed the thing and view the matter, and questions that *I* had and wanted to understand. That is ALL that I intended. Again, though, because of YOUR personal views/feelings about ME... you took it somewhere that I had absolutely no intention. Primarily starting with personal insults. The difference between you and me? I DON'T know you... nor do I purport to. You, though, think you "know" me... and you really are wrong.

  and support the conclusion (which you made very clearly on the last page!) that there is Camp A(theiscm), Camp R(religion) and Camp J(esus), the later being defined as what the voice you hear has to say,

  This is only partly true: while that IS the conclusion I believe, I did not intend for ANYONE to "support" my conclusion, let alone agree with it. I don't care if folks do or don't, dear one. I just posted what *I* understand. Now, if that caused some to pause and think... what of it?

  which is the only one you want to belong to due to the religion=science(atheism) implication.

  Wrong again, dear one. That it's the only one I belong to has absolutely nothing to do with the religion/science implication at ALL. OR with atheism. At ALL.

  Responding with a joke about how you persieve evidence is, in that light, not an inappropriate response.

  Well, I don't see it that way... but I did not know we were bounds to rules of "appropriateness." In fact, though, if you read what I often post, MOST of it would be considered "inappropriate" by someone. That doesn't make a difference to ME, though. It is what's in ME... and if another finds that "inappropriate," well... I mean... so what?

  And contrary to what you conclude, i can only state my intention was not to poke fun at your mental health (and i hate that accusation!), but how i think you apply your sceptisism unevenly. misapplied sceptisism is confirmation bias.

  Oh, stop. C'mon... just stop. If what you're saying is true, then YOU made an "inappropriate" response. A VERY inappropriate response. But that's been par for the course of this entire interchange between you and me: you want to chastise me for being inappropriate. Seriously? Everything that you have accused me to doing... is what you have done. YOU made your initial response in the manner that YOU did... to stir up. YOU did. That's the ONLY thing a response like that is meant for: to insult and so stir up. Stop it, Bohm. I DO think you're better than that... usually. Here, though, you are really lying to yourself...

  Furthermore, when i provided clear evidence how you WAS (contrary to what you claim) making a comparison between science and religion, you avoided that claim. when i called you out on your avoidance you responded:

  Which was the TRUTH! I didn't even READ them. By the time you posted that, I had begun just skipping over your posts. Because to ME, they were meant to stip up. In addition, others were directing comments to me, as well... and I was trying to keep up. Your posts, then, became the lowest priority for me... BECAUSE of how you had already addressed me.

  Like i wrote, i could not answer your questions beause i am incompetent to do so.

  First, it took you some time to post that. After I stated that although you had attempted to mention everything ELSE under the sun, you had not addressed my questions. But then you did attempt to "answer": you explained virtual particles. But I never had a problem with the existence of virtual particles, per se. I questioned their origin and destination. Even so, I have to say that I was surprised that you didn't respond to the man digging a hole model - another did, however, and I agree with that one: the equation Dr. Hawking's show gave doesn't add up.

  If you allow yourself to refuse replying to central points because i did not answer a question we all know i could not answer, well, there is no point is there?

  Bohm, the truth is that there really was not point after your first comment. Really, there wasn't. And I tried to communicate that, albeit wrongly perhaps, in my first response to you: deal with YOUR issues, whatever they may be, and quit trying to point a finger at what you THINK is mine. You didn't get that, but pursued a "game"... and I allowed myself to "play" it with you. I shouldn't have... and for THAT I apologize to the entire board.

  Unless there is something substantive to add this is what i have to say, it make little point continuing a discussion where all points have been made 2 times, we are both tired off, and where your mind is made up with respect to what i believe.

  Likewise... particularly to the highlighted statement (which you can't seem to grasp is running BOTH ways, here...)

  kind wishes and all, now i am going to have a beer.

  The greatest of love and peace to you, as well, truly... because I do NOT believe our different beliefs OR perspectives should ever overcome such wishes for one another... and CHIN-CHIN!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  bohm

  But, of course, it's always... and only... "believers" who have an ulterior motive/agenda when asking questions.

  persecution!