Introducing the Hunter process.

Highjohn wrote:Drak
Atheism, is a-theism. The prefix 'a' meaning 'not' and theist meaning 'a believer in god(s)'.

This is in fact the case for ancient Christians. They did not believe in 'the gods'. The fact that the romans had a poor understanding of Christian theology doesn't mean hey were using the word differently.

P.S. If you really want me to I can still call you an atheist. Just ask.

Highjohn wrote:This is in fact the case for ancient Christians. They did not believe in 'the gods'. The fact that the romans had a poor understanding of Christian theology doesn't mean hey were using the word differently.

runsforcelery wrote:
Guys, can we cool it a little bit? I don't agree with Highjohn's position, but I think part of the problem here is that everyone on both sides seems to feel his own personal ox is being gored.

Drak and Peter, I don't personally agree with Highjohn's definitions of who and what different groups of Christians believe. I'm a Methodist, but I was raised High Church Episcopalian back when it really was Catholic Lite, so I sort of straddle the Protestant/Catholic divide, and I absolutely agree that Catholics do not worship saints or angels or the Virgin Mary. I also agree that neither bunch of us worship three different Gods at the same time, and that we do worship the God of Abraham. However, I would also point out that for people who do not share our beliefs and/or were not raised in them, the distinctions which are crystal clear and vitally important to us can get kinda blurry. I have friends who are Muslim who are every bit as devout as I am but who insist --- politely but stubbornly --- that you cannot subdivide God which is obviously what Christians do no matter how hard they argue that they aren't doing it at all. They are genuinely puzzled and unable to comprehend how we could possibly think the way we do, despite the numerous times all of us have explained to the others where they're wrong. It's just part of the fundamental baggage we carry with us because of our belief systems.

I don't think that Highjohns was trying to be arrogant or dismissive in the hypothetical evil god he was postulating, and he was very careful from the beginning to say that it was a purely hypothetical instance concocted purely for the purpose of illustrating the point he was trying to make. I also think that it's obvious we are not going to change his mind about the existence of God and that he isn't going to change ours any more than Kemal is going to convince me to convert to Islam or than I'm going to get him to come to communion next Sunday. Doesn't mean he and I aren't friends or that we can't respect one another's beliefs, though, and we are always very careful to discuss the differences in our religious beliefs, not to quarrel over them. I'd love to convert him, and I'm pretty sure he'd love to convert me, not to count some sort of religious coup but because we each love the other and want to see him finding the right path to God. We realize we don't agree on which of those is the right path, but in the meantime, we're both just concentrating on understanding the other fellow as well as we can. Don't think he'd get along as well with one of the hardcore fundamentalist hell-and-damnation sects hellbent on making everybody conform to their beliefs (whatever their beliefs might be) and picketing military funerals to protest gay rights, but then neither would I. I'm pretty darned sure I wouldn't get along with an Islamic fundamentalist, either, and I know Kemal wouldn't.

My point is that proselytizing is one thing, discussion is another, and condemnation is something else again. For that matter, pretty much all of the Epistles (and most of the bits in red type in the Gospels, guys) suggest that condemnation of those who disagree with you is not on the list of approved Christian activities. I'd just like everyone to back away, put down your guns for a moment, and assume that the fellow on the other side might actually be a sincere and decent person who may not agree with you, may even express himself in ways that sting and seem clumsy or even boorish, but who may also have no intention of deliberately stepping on anyone.

Unless someone jumps down my throat and assails my right to hold whatever beliefs I hold or engages in what is clearly religion baiting --- in either direction, guys --- then I'm pretty much cool with his right to express whatever thought or belief he wants to express. Hey, he may be wrong, as far as I'm concerned, but it's entirely possibly for someone to just be wrong. I think we get into an awful lot of trouble if we assume that anyone who's wrong must be willfully dishonest or "the enemy" just because we believe he's wrong.

Graydon wrote:

Serious problem number 1:

Serious problem number 2:

Serious problem number 3:

Serious problem number 4:

Serious problem number 5:

dan92677 wrote:I'm still waiting for the thread to return to titanium, or something similar...

ericth wrote:

Graydon wrote:

Serious problem number 1:

Serious problem number 2:

Serious problem number 3:

Serious problem number 4:

Serious problem number 5:

One of the things I enjoy about Barfly discussions, particularly about Safehold, is the way I have to go to wikipedia and google so often to look up stuff other knowledgeable barfiles have provided. It's a great example of 'The wisdom of crowds'.

Thrandir wrote:Holy Mackerel here I was thinking I would learn more about titanium use and bang off course we go

Good interesting read all the same.

Always 2 things my father said to me:
1) Never talk politics &/or religion if you cannot respect the other person's point of view

2) Never argue with a woman she is always right even when she is wrong she is still right

Back to the original topic - it is also assuming that Titanium is a substance they actually know about.
The manufacturing of sulphuric acid and ammonia are key principles for any modern industrial base and it would be far more prudent to have these up and running economical and efficiently than a process which involves a lot of expense and risk.