On 28/07/2014 00:33, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 08:26:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>>
>> True. But that is how we are distracted.
>
> It happens.  Squirrel! ;)
>

You don't catch me like that again.


>> How childish and trivial for a supernatural being to put worship of them
>> self above everything else. (Gives you real confidence in the
>> afterlife.)
>
> Bingo. :)
>

Clickity click, sixty six.
One its own number six.

For a line. The number of the beast. 6-6-6
Step up sir and collect your Prize.
:-)

>>> I'd rather be a good person than waste my life worshiping something
>>> just to have a shot at beating Pascal's Wager.
>>>
>> Yes, I'll live by my conscience and let others play with those who have
>> nothing else to do but think about the number of angels that can dance
>> on the head of a needle.
>
> Yep.  As long as they're not affecting the lives of others around them in
> a negative way, I generally don't care.  The problem is that a lot of
> these nitwits *do* affect the lives of others around them in a negative
> way - like insisting that science classes "teach the controversy" of
> evolution vs. creationism - as if creationism is anything like science.
>

Where?

> Or that anyone other than nitwits like Ken Ham think that creationism
> *is* a valid theory of how the world works, especially young earth
> creationism.
>
> If they want to believe that, fine.  But when they're people who sit on
> the Texas Board of Education (which for reasons of scale ends up deciding
> what's in science textbooks across the United States), then I have a HUGE
> problem with them.
>

I've given up reading about it.
I sympathise but what can you do when you see militant fundamentalist 
"Christians" to the west and militant fundamentalist "Muslims" to the 
east. Even Buddhists are killing people.

>> On the other hand. The mythology opens up boundless opportunity for
>> stories.
>
> True, and mythology recognized as mythology is a pretty cool thing.  But
> I wouldn't dream of thinking that the Arthurian mythos are a basis for
> defining a morality.


How about the Druids and Wiccan? Religions made up in Victorian times, I 
think.

> They're pretty good, especially when retold by
> Monty Python (just came back from watching that in the cinema, in
> fact). :)
>

Bad memories that one for me. While listening to the album and "tuning 
in". A friend had a bad time. I had to talk them down for about six 
hours with insects crawling out of the walls. Bummer!
On the bright side. It wasn't me. :-)


>> Have you read any of Charles Stross's Laundry series?
>
> I haven't, but I think I might have to. :)
>

Where?

>> Where his protagonist is not the BOFH but the Sysop fighting the forces
>> from Hell. Quite funny and the Tech bits don't jar.
>
> *Definitely* have to check it out. :)
>

You do. If you go to his website http://www.antipope.org/
Fun name, what!
There is some free stuff there. His early Hard SF is recommended.

>>>> Bitter! Moi?
>>>
>>> Nah, I'm not seeing you being bitter *at all* about it. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> But I am Jim. I am.
>
> You are?  It's not really coming through. ;)
>

Good! I might get away with it for a few more years yet. ;-)


Where! Tell Me! Tell Me. Where?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message