Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments (Page 538)

Showing posts 10,741 - 10,760 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Lincoln

Rutherfordton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11304
Jan 14, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all.
For all I care, you can skin a rabbit, dip it in pig's blood, nail it to your dining table and dance round it naked if you like. I'm really not bothered.
They do that in England?:-)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11305
Jan 14, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a "Simple lack of belief"
God claims each will hear the word and know it to be true but some will still reject it.
God knows you inside and out. You cannot hide from him.
So if I am honestly not convinced by the evidence, is that considered a 'rejection'? If so, that is an immoral system.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11306
Jan 14, 2013
 
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>This all depends on how your define Christian.

To me a Christian has to believe the tenants of the religion, such as believing the trinity and jesus being God. Does Obama believe a man walked on water, rose from the dead and ascend to heaven on a cloud. Believers will sing eternal praises to yahweh and disbelievers burn in hell. I seriously doubt it.
No one cares about your definition of anything. If you're interested in what constitutes a Christian look it up.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11307
Jan 14, 2013
 
Lincoln wrote:
Roman Catholics Don't embrace Intelligent Design!- Correction.
Here's Is an update on this

"Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the Vatican's view of evolution.

There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.

A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11308
Jan 14, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all.

skin a rabbit, dip it in pig's blood, nail it to your dining table and dance round it naked.
So you reveal your sacred dinner dance.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11309
Jan 14, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like I got to you with that response, I'll be sure to save it for future use.
"So you will now accept anything with the science stamp on it.
Rather pitiful!"
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11310
Jan 14, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So then Ra is the one true god.
For you it matters not.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11311
Jan 14, 2013
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Did you miss the rest of his post, or was it just too hard for you to comprehend?

He said - "...because of lack of evidence, a person gets tortured forever. The designer of such a system must be condemned as truly evil."
You must not have read this or is it that you do not understand the term "know it to be true"

"God claims each will hear the word and know it to be true but some will still reject it."
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11312
Jan 14, 2013
 
He'd only stick it up his Gary.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps Dim needs a candle.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11313
Jan 14, 2013
 
I'm not going to capitalise "god", but even you know what it is.

If I started calling "god" the c word (that's cu*t, btw), you'd only confuse it with yourself.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Indeed, it would be rather juvenile to misspell God simply in order to insult theists. If such an atheist had so little respect for another person, why even waste the time writing to them in the first place, much less deliberately trying to hurt them at the same time? While that may actually be the case with some atheists who write the word 'god' with a lowercase 'g,' "
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/ca...
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11314
Jan 14, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not going to capitalise "god", but even you know what it is.

If I started calling "god" the c word (that's cu*t, btw), you'd only confuse it with yourself.
"Indeed, it would be rather juvenile to misspell God simply in order to insult theists"
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11315
Jan 14, 2013
 
Good thing I didn't misspell god, then.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Indeed, it would be rather juvenile to misspell God simply in order to insult theists"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11317
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"So you will now accept anything with the science stamp on it.
Rather pitiful!"
Well, lots of areas claim to be science, but are not. Creationism, for example. The way to tell the difference is to see if there is any research based on observation done in the subject. In particular, there should be people who doubt some details of the subject, propose tests, those tests are done, and opinions change based on those tests.

As an example, in the subject of Big Bang cosmology, there has been a debate about whether dark matter can be explained away using an alternative theory of gravity. People proposed such alternative theories, made predictions on these theories that differed from the predictions made by the standard theory, and then observations were made. it turns out that the observations showed the alternative theories are wrong, so opinions changed as a result.

For evolution, there were those who thought that certain (not all) dinosaurs were warm blooded. They proposed tests of this idea (such as counting growth rings in the bone) and observations were made. In this case, the observations agreed with those saying the dinos were warm blooded and opinions changed.

Again, there were those that suggested that certain dinos and birds were closely related. Again, observations were proposed. The fossils discovered supported the predictions made by those proposing the relatedness.

By this rule, cosmology and evolutionary biology are legitimate sciences.

On the other hand, the Creation Research Institute does not do any tests, proposes no observations testing its ideas, and *only* criticizes the work of others. That is enough to show it isn't a legitimate scientific institution.

Now, does having a legitimate institution guarantee correct statements? No, of course not. Scientists are human and are often wrong. But having legitimate science being done means any mistakes are more likely to be found and corrected. Because of this, any core idea that has survived longer than a couple of decades is probably reliable.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11318
Jan 14, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, lots of areas claim to be science, but are not. Creationism, for example. The way to tell the difference is to see if there is any research based on observation done in the subject. In particular, there should be people who doubt some details of the subject, propose tests, those tests are done, and opinions change based on those tests.

As an example, in the subject of Big Bang cosmology, there has been a debate about whether dark matter can be explained away using an alternative theory of gravity. People proposed such alternative theories, made predictions on these theories that differed from the predictions made by the standard theory, and then observations were made. it turns out that the observations showed the alternative theories are wrong, so opinions changed as a result.

For evolution, there were those who thought that certain (not all) dinosaurs were warm blooded. They proposed tests of this idea (such as counting growth rings in the bone) and observations were made. In this case, the observations agreed with those saying the dinos were warm blooded and opinions changed.

Again, there were those that suggested that certain dinos and birds were closely related. Again, observations were proposed. The fossils discovered supported the predictions made by those proposing the relatedness.

By this rule, cosmology and evolutionary biology are legitimate sciences.

On the other hand, the Creation Research Institute does not do any tests, proposes no observations testing its ideas, and *only* criticizes the work of others. That is enough to show it isn't a legitimate scientific institution.

Now, does having a legitimate institution guarantee correct statements? No, of course not. Scientists are human and are often wrong. But having legitimate science being done means any mistakes are more likely to be found and corrected. Because of this, any core idea that has survived longer than a couple of decades is probably reliable.
For years and years science claimed the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old.

Stephen Harking just published a speech of his that claims the universe is 15 billion years old.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...

Wikipedia:

"the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe"

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11319
Jan 14, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
For years and years science claimed the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old.
Stephen Harking just published a speech of his that claims the universe is 15 billion years old.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...
Wikipedia:
"the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe"
What point are you trying to make?

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11320
Jan 14, 2013
 
First. So what?
Second. Why won't he retake the test under proper observations? His IQ claims are mostly self promotion.
Third: for having such a high IQ he sucked on that IQ testing game show. Perhaps he was having an off day? But never let the FACTS get in the way I out opinion I see.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210"
Believes in God.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11321
Jan 14, 2013
 
I hate to break this to you but Yahweh is your god. You pray to Yahweh if you are a Christian.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The same rule holds true for Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, and the names of gods in other religions. They are capitalized."

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11322
Jan 14, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's Is an update on this
"Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals close to Pope Benedict will gather at his summer palace outside Rome this week for intensive discussions that could herald a fundamental shift in the Vatican's view of evolution.
There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.
A prominent anti-evolutionist and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".
That was a rumor from 7 years ago. You're getting desperate.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11323
Jan 15, 2013
 
derek4 wrote:
The Christian God is traditionally capitalized.
So is Santa Claus.

BTW, you made a capitalization error there. It's "The Christian god."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11324
Jan 15, 2013
 
derek4 wrote:
However, you should have said "leg irons", not "legs irons".
Keeping working on your grammar, and perhaps you'll improve.
Grammar? That was spelling. You just fcuked up capitalization.

Were you home schooled, Dim?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,741 - 10,760 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••