Dramatic Tablet lends credence to Jesus' existence
-
It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on
It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on
You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on
You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...
-
It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on
You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...
Have you ever heard the saying "to smart for your own good"? It is beyond obvious you very much enjoy hearing yourself talk. There will come a day when that grammatical elegance will not help you. It's a shame you are so smart you can't see the Creator in this wonderous world. This by the way from someone who may attend church once a year.You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...
-
Too smart for your own good? Religious leaders must hate that
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Yeah, it's common problem everywhere.
People that THINK they are too smart.
And thinking that way, isn't for their own good. Why,
all too often, they end up all alone, never date, and get
on web sites like, what was it? Nambla?
And they go around molting and pecking....
-
I don't think NAMBLA members are too smart for their own good... Lol
-
you know some? a lot...of them?
-
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.Too smart for your own good? Religious leaders must hate that
-
Have you ever heard the saying "to smart for your own good"? It is beyond obvious you very much enjoy hearing yourself talk. There will come a day when that grammatical elegance will not help you. It's a shame you are so smart you can't see the Creator in this wonderous world. This by the way from someone who may attend church once a year.You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...
Have you ever heard the saying "to smart for your own good"? It is beyond obvious you very much enjoy hearing yourself talk. There will come a day when that grammatical elegance will not help you. It's a shame you are so smart you can't see the Creator in this wonderous world. This by the way from someone who may attend church once a year.
As I have stated before, and I will undoubtedly have to say it again in the future, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I base my views on life upon the best available data that I have. Is it perfect? No. Has science answered every question about life? No. But therein lies the key difference between religion and science: science does not have all the answers, but scientists from all fields are continually advancing our knowledge of the universe; they are constantly testing and refining theories about our reality, and improving our understanding of the world based on tangible evidence. Religion, conversely, maintains that there is nothing to discover, that everything was created by a mysterious, omnipotent and omnipresent deity, who watches over every human being every moment of their lives (and afterlives) like some celestial dictator; a cosmic Kim Jeong-Un. And to top it all off, we are supposed to maintain an unwavering faith in this "creator" without a scrap of proof to suggest that he even exists, or worse, base our entire beliefs in him upon dusty, old Iron Age scribblings, of which there is ample evidence of multiple human revisions, omissions, and modifications. So no, I will not apologize for using my brain and faculties of reasoning to dismiss a bunch of superstitious fairy tales, nor will I apologize if that offends yours or anyone else's apparently delicate sensibilities.
It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on
You and I appear to be wasting our breath on this Woody. Cal and the other detractors are either unable or unwilling to stick to the topic and try to answer this. That's why Cal is going to probably continue on with his insults and off-topic distractions. The debate in this particular thread is pretty much over in my book. I suppose he'll run out of blaze articles and Wikipedia links eventually.
-
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.Too smart for your own good? Religious leaders must hate that
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.
Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but here in the United States, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think I have a "superiority complex"; I just respond to posts as I see fit, and I try to do so in a half-way intelligent manner. If that somehow offends you, by all means, you are more than welcome to click that "ignore" button on my username.
-
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.
Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but here in the United States, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think I have a "superiority complex"; I just respond to posts as I see fit, and I try to do so in a half-way intelligent manner. If that somehow offends you, by all means, you are more than welcome to click that "ignore" button on my username.
No, I do respect your right to free speech and your opinion. My religious belief is that you have been granted the ability to choose what to believe as well. I do however believe that science and Christian beliefs in many cases aren't mutually exclusive.Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but here in the United States, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think I have a "superiority complex"; I just respond to posts as I see fit, and I try to do so in a half-way intelligent manner. If that somehow offends you, by all means, you are more than welcome to click that "ignore" button on my username.
-
Right. We need to get back on topic...
Shape shifting Mila Kunis
ikr?
-
Religion, conversely, maintains that there is nothing to discover, that everything was created by a mysterious, omnipotent and omnipresent deity jbloo
*********************************
Grandious. Check. Slightly bigger words. Check. "Religion....maintains....nothing new to discover"
What a giant pile of liberal pseudo-reality.
List of Christians in science and technology -...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers...... techniques in medical science. A devout Christian, ... on Religious Belief and madediscoveries ... New Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and ...
-
still waiting on jblu to catch on with
learn...think....then post.
well, and Cleve. And the woodpecker.
Actually, Chris has done it once or twice........
I think Edward does it...
but then he writes bs anyways.....
-
Happy Halloween everybody hope you get as drunk as I do ?
-
and then when they lose their argument...
they CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
I nailed that one....good liberal dishonest job, Edward.
-
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-evolution-anthropological-evidence-who-was-adam-148337/
From the link you provided:
Rana: "The position we espouse...is called Old Earth Creationism. We think that the days in Genesis 1 are long, finite periods of time. Because of this view, we accept the scientific dates for the Earth's age and life's antiquity. But we are Creationists. And as such, we are skeptical that evolution can account for life's origin, history, and design. We reject human evolution and believe in a historical Adam and Eve.
The "theory" of old earth creationism is, i'm afraid, about as close to being scientific as you are to being a liberal and voting for Hillary, Cal. Since you are such a big fan of wikipedia links, I have provided this for you to read at your leisure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism#Gap_creationism
However, how the "scientists" in the article try to disguise the deeper religious connotations under the guise of "scientific" OEC theory is preposterous. In fact, what they are doing is the complete opposite of the scientific method. In their view, they already claim to know that :
1) God exists, and that he created the universe (and they do not even leave themselves room for error by making the broad claim of a general creator God. No, no, they claim that it is specifically the "Christian" God, and biblical creationism),
2) That a historical Adam and Eve existed,
3) This historical Adam and Eve were created separate from other animals, already in the final Homo Sapiens form, and not evolved from them.
That is the common flaw with Rana's, Ross', and other creationist's viewpoints: they have already reached the conclusion that both the idea of the Christian God and the biblical story of creation is real first, before they have found evidence to prove it; in fact, their mission now is to somehow take existing, hard scientific data about evolution, geology, astronomy, etc, and somehow try to make it fit into their creation narrative, irregardless of how well it actually fits. This is completely backwards from how scientific inquiry works. You first make a hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis; depending on the results and accuracy of your experiment, you can then either reject the original hypothesis if the data proves it false, or, if not, continue to perform experiments to further refine your hypothesis until all the cumulative evidence can verify your theory as having a high probability of being true.
That, my friend, is the difference between science and religion. Religion deals in absolutes: For one religion to be right, all other views have to be wrong, irregardless of either the lack of supporting evidence for the favored religious ideology, or overwhelming evidence against it. Science does not deal in absolutes; the theory of what is right today is right because the best available data indicates it to be so, but if better, more accurate evidence comes along tomorrow, then what's right shifts along with it. The rational and logical mind always follow the evidence.
The two gentlemen in the article may claim to be scientists, but I can assure you, they are not acting in a proper, scientific manner. All they are doing is trying to cloak their underlying religious beliefs under the banner of scientific discovery, and are doing a rather poor job of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/religions.php
http://www.aaas.org/news/seminarians-see-science-relevant-future-ministry
Again, both of these articles are more of the same as the article mentioned above. These religious organizations are not trying to learn about science and the scientific method to learn the proper skills to think scientifically and to gain a better understanding of the universe, wherever that may take them; what they are actually attempting to do is open themselves to science in some vain attempt to use the merits and knowledge obtained by scientific inquiry and try to fit it into their already existing religious ideologies. They are not using science to scrutinize their religious beliefs themselves. Again, in their minds, they already have the absolute answer that God is real and that creationism is true beforehand, and are simply trying to take scientific theory and data and beat it into their predetermined viewpoint by any means necessary.
and then when they lose their argument...
they CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
So let me get this straight: I posted a Mithra theory (waaaay back on page 2), in response to your question of "...what other religious figure in history sacrificed himself, arose again, to die for our sins ". And instead of posting a rebuttal, you decided to instead skew off into some other tangent about grammar, and then proceeded to slander others on this board with some preposterous NAMBLA horseshit after that. And that is not changing the subject, how, exactly?
Learn...think...then post, my ass, I suppose...
Religion, conversely, maintains that there is nothing to discover, that everything was created by a mysterious, omnipotent and omnipresent deity jbloo
*********************************
Grandious. Check. Slightly bigger words. Check. "Religion....maintains....nothing new to discover"
GRANDIOSE.
What a giant pile of liberal pseudo-reality.
No, it is exactly how I described it. You can call it by any name you wish, Old Earth Creationism, Young Earth Creationism, Gap Theory, Biblical/Koranic Literalism, etc. When you boil it all down, they are all still forms of creationism, and Creationism, at its most simple and fundamental level, is based upon religious ideology. Regardless of how they try to cloak it under many layers of "science", they still are, and by their very nature, will always be, built upon the absolute belief in a Creator and creation mythology specific to their particular religious beliefs, and to the exclusion of all other beliefs. To them, that religious belief is absolute. Religion always deals in absolutes. Or, to put it in another way:
Religion...maintains that there is nothing to discover...that everything was created by a mysterious, omnipotent and omnipresent deity
"Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling. The Koran repeatedly declares that it is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible's account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the point of view of Islam, proves that he was the most recent Prophet of God. Muhammad also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believes otherwise will spend eternity in hell. Muslims are certain that Muhammad's opinion on this subject, as on all others, is infallible. Why don't you lose any sleep over whether to convert to Islam? Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true God? Can you prove that the archangel Gabriel did not visit Muhammad in his cave? Of course not. But you need not prove any of these things to reject the beliefs of Muslims as absurd. The burden is upon them to prove that their beliefs about God...are valid. They have not done this. They cannot do this. Muslims are simply not making claims about reality that can be corroborated. This is perfectly apparent to anyone who has not anesthetized himself with the dogma of Islam. The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn't it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically? Isn't it obvious that the doctrine of Islam represents a near perfect barrier to honest inquiry? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions."
- Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation"
https://luptaanticapitalista.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sam-harris-letter-to-a-christian-nation.pdf
-
He was great on Star Search.
WSS
-
He was great on Star Search.
WSS
He was great on Star Search.
Not the same guy, but I see what you did there. To be honest, I had to look that up; Star search was a few years before my time.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login