Just fact-checking aguest a bit.
Bottom line: I saw a show, made some comments (that you apparently don't like - so what...), and asked some questions. You never even addressed the questions until I made enough comments about that.
no i did not. you want to know why? I am entirely incompetent to evaluate string theory. its a very important point, i want to say it again: i do not have a phd in high-energy physics and i am incompetent in terms of evaluating hawkins ideas, and answer to finer details in them.
Even if i had a phd in high-energy physics i would be reluctant to do so because i suspect you have an agenda with your questions (along the lines of science=religion, hey, not saying you do, just saying that is my impression), and explaining string theory would be a multi-hour posting session.
You immediately insinuated that I had some neural problem.
i like to think i have a better sence of humor than thinking it is funny you have a neural disorder. I made the following joke:
Oh boy, Jesus must have answered the first 10'000 questions before you accepted the voice you hear is actually him and not the average neural dysfunction!
the point being i think you apply your sceptisism unevenly, not your mental health which is not something i would joke about like that.
As for you having a neural dysfunction? yes ofcourse i believe that! everybody who does not accept you are actually communicating with god must believe that. its nothing personal, its just the way words are used in medicine: Talk to things which does not exist for years? ---> you most likely got a neural disorder.
I wouldnt dream of judging you based on your mental state. i think you are a nice person most of the time (i would have said all the time 7 days ago).
For the record, i would hope my loved ones would be a lot more agressive in telling me i had a neural disorder and had to see a doctor than people here generally are for you, were it the case i began to hear voices.
That that was your immediate reaction said to ME that you had some issues. Whether with me, my comments, my position, or not related to me, at all. Whatever. Whatever they were, you felt perfectly fine taking them OUT... on ME.
i dont know what the above sentence mean... i suppose you are referring to the issues you have diagnosed me with and want to say something about that. cant really get any more specific. you still think that analysis is spot on?
Yes, I know: I was "supposed" to do the "christian" thing (based on your expectations)... and just let you get away with that: turn the other cheek and such. And I did... but not without brushing across yours, first.
i think your should say what you honestly feel and what you think is the best in the situation, not let what you say be dictated by religious dogma. most atheists, as you will find, hope their religious friends do not let their actions be dictated by dogma.
You didn't like that and so made this issue about me and you... rather than the presentation in question, such presentations in general, the theories set forth in the one... and/or my questions about those theories.
another sentence where i have to do my best to interpret it. i think you are saying i should have answered your questions. like i wrote previously i am incompetent to do so.
You even took it to another thread (shaking head), where others tried to tell you, "Leave it at the door." And you were unable to do that.
now that sound really bad, but that wasnt really what happened aguest now was it?
Lets go back to the thread you mention:
you made the following comment (my bold)
The comments are interesting, dear Unshackled (peace to you!). Correct me if I'm wrong, but with one or two exceptions, it seemed to ME like the atheists were misunderstanding... and arguing with (indeed, even openly reviling)... the atheists.
And, yes, that is exactly what Dr. Hawking said. He stated this at the end of the show that some of us were discussing (if you can call it that) on another thread. It was this statement, actually, that prompted me to think (gave me hope, actually) that I could even deign to HAVE questions regarding his theories, little 'ol insignificant "believer" that I am. I got the impression that he might entertain them... and, unfortunately, somehow made the same assumption (hope) as to some who profess atheism here. Found out THAT was NOT the case, BIG time! If I didn't learn anything else, I learned... do not question the [dis]beliefs of an atheist... OR deign to make any comparisons to religion... even if such exist.
Appears from the comments on your link... that that would be the same among those atheists in general, as well. Either you "get" what they do... or you're so beneath their intellectual level you're not even worth a civil comment. At least, that's how I see it.
Again, peace to you... and thank you for giving me yet another reason to believe that atheism, while perhaps different in ideology... isn't very much different, in literal PRACTICE... at least, when you get to the layfolk... when it comes down to "discussing" with those who think differently than them... from religion.
A slave of Christ,
It was very hard for me not to get the impression the bolded segments related to me.
So i responded in two parts, the later being addressed at you:
I think hawkins is stating the scientific account is complete as far as describing what happends in a human brain, but unable to give quantitative answers for a range of questions due to the complexity (to many equations).
People then make alternative (bad!) models which include God. God exist in that sence.
Aguest, may you have pease and reconsider your passive-agressive behaviour. you spend a good part of that thread calling me arrogant, hypocrit and making a barely coherent personal analysis of me all while you compared science to a religious cult and claimed science was so easy a child could understand it. If you despite this think you got crucified in the midst of making honest inquieries (rather than a large set of self-validating questions) i recommend you take that up in a more direct manner or just leave it at that. playing victim and making badly veiled snide remarks accomplish nothing.
which i stand by 100%.
Should i have responded in this thread? perhaps (but if i was offtopic so was you!). the problem was at the time you were analyzing me and had paused in posting on that thread (and written you was done), which led me to be a bit annoyed to see it jump up and used in the way it was.
I like to think you are a person who try to be very honest. Therefore i cant help wondering why you would represent what happened the way you did. Did you really recollect the thread as me jumping on you yet one more time?
I think this thread is getting to the point where you are saying things which are not very true, and not responding to what i write (the bullet list i made previously is another example).