Happy to reblog this; take careful note how he carries his points. Disagreements need not be caustic, and in his dissection of my post, we can learn some admirable qualities in how to find value in that which we do not understand or even find questionable.
Of course its not a popular topic, but still important, and one which believers and unbelievers alike find common ground, or in some cases, no ground at all.
But I like the idea of ‘fun’ as suggested, and I enjoyed the spirit in which my very thoughts were considered. And by the way, great minds have disagreed for centuries, but in seeing the pros and cons, it may be more interesting for the reader to consider not what I believe but what YOU believe, and why. Prove it so to speak.
Now enjoy the -X files, (and follow this excellent site)
First some quick background: I like to reproduce in their entirety posts with which I disagree, then comment on each paragraph in turn. This in order #1: to disagree with them comprehensively, leaving no room for the one with whom I’m disagreeing to say, “Ah hah! You didn’t address this!“and #2: to avoid a circumstance in which I disagree with a post that an author then deletes, thereby erasing the record that it even existed.
However, I’ve never done that treatment for (to?) someone with whom I generally agree. I’m going to try it today with someone who’s long been a friend of this blog: ColorStorm. In regard to this post here.
So, ColorStorm, here is a reaction to your post, entitled: “I am Jack the barbarian…….grrrr”
I was intrigued by this post, because it’s about science and Christianity, and I’m both a scientist and
View original post 2,616 more words