Sunday school isn't a public sector. I see my religion stamped upon all over the public sector by arrogant atheists who want to push their point of view over others. I've seen atheists protest and sue public schools for teachers who say things like "one point of view on the whole evolution thing held by SOME PEOPLE is the concept of creationism." lol
Religion does not belong in the public sector. You can't push your religion on other people without also alienating atheists, muslims, jews, sikhs, and everyone else but you. If the pubic sector remains secular (like it says in the constitution), then nobody will get offended. This is called equality. If you want to teach all points of view, then you should also teach the Norse creation myth. Two lands called Muspellsheim and Niflheim were created ex nihilo. Ymir was the father of the frost giants. He sweated out the first two giants, male & female, out of his underarm. His sons later rebelled and killed him. This caused so much blood to pour forth that everyone drowned, except Beregelmir and his wife, who managed to launch a small boat and escape.
Do you want to deny Norse teachings in the classroom? Or what about the Hindu/Chinese concept of the world-turtle? Should that be taught in the science classroom too? If your answer is no, then how can you complain about "arrogant atheists" pushing their beliefs on you when you're perfectly willing to do it to others?
Quote:
And yes, there are some radical Christians who protest during funerals, but I don't think the Westboro Baptist Church is a great example for Christianity as a whole. It's too large and complex a category of belief that one tiny example like that just doesn't cut it. I might as well call an elephant white because I saw a white tusk.
True, Westboro Baptist isn't a good example. Nevertheless, when it comes to religion, everyone is an extremist. My parents and some of my friends are anti-homophobic & anti-semetic. They're normal decent people, but these are extreme beliefs. You don't understand what kind of price you have to pay for subscribing to religion. I feel the need to post this picture again:
15 million dollars. Where do you think that money comes from? If these people spent as much time doing something good as they did trying to deny equal rights, then maybe something would get done. Again, everyone is an extremist. These guys are on the wrong side of history, and their bigotry will die with them. Our children will look back on these people the same way we look back on people that denied equal rights for women and blacks.
@Gradius12: Go
I've seen atheists protest and sue public schools for teachers who say things like "one point of view on the whole evolution thing held by SOME PEOPLE is the concept of creationism." lol
Yeah US education is already pretty bad. Wonder when will they teach flat-earth "theory".
Religion belongs in the public sector because the public is religious. I consider a white-washed secular culture to be oppressive and, quite frankly, dull. America should own its Christian heritage instead of trying to slide it behind a curtain for the sake of a vocal atheist minority. Allowing things like prayer in schools or religious imagery in government offices should be allowed, though not forced. Should religion be taught in science classrooms? Of course not. I never advocated such a thing. Religion belongs in theology classrooms. I think it's a common error for people to confuse science with atheism - the two are not inseparable. Atheism often hijacks science for its own justification, but science and philosophy are two different schools, as are science and theology and philosophy and theology.
Obviously I disagree with your extremely broad statement that "when it comes to religion, everyone is an extremist." An extremist by what metric? If you mean by the human population, then I am extremely skeptical since it seems most people have some spiritual or religious belief. If you mean all humans throughout history, again I'm extremely skeptical since throughout history, it seems most humans have held spiritual or religious beliefs for a significant portion of their lives. Of course, if you mean "most of my friends" then I can't really contest that argument...
Your concern about the "price of religion" is pretty amusing.
@BasharTeg: Go
If not secular, why not have a muslim America right away? Or buddhist America?
Secularism isnt placed for atheism, its placed that all religion would be equal.
And yeah theology and philosophy are for adults.
Btw what Christian heritage does America have? As I know native Americans had many religions....
Religion belongs in the public sector because the public is religious. I consider a white-washed secular culture to be oppressive and, quite frankly, dull. America should own its Christian heritage instead of trying to slide it behind a curtain for the sake of a vocal atheist minority. Allowing things like prayer in schools or religious imagery in government offices should be allowed, though not forced.
Yeah, and I think that bronze-age folklore and prostrating before an invisible sky daddy is dull and oppressive, but I don't try to enact those beliefs into actual law like you guys do. Luckily what you want doesn't matter. That's why we have a constitution. If the majority of people wanted to bring back slavery, then that's just too damn bad, because it's unconstitutional. Likewise, you can't force a religion on the public sector when it means alienating every religion except yours. That's how you establish equality, by not picking one religion over another. The founders made that crystal clear.
Prayer in schools was never banned. People are allowed to pray in school, so I don't see what the problem is. As for religious imagery, keep it, I don't think anybody really cares, least of all me. As long as we get a statue of the Buddha next to a statue of Jesus.
Quote:
Your concern about the "price of religion" is pretty amusing.
Are these adjusted for population? Are the individuals polled once they donate or before? Who did this survey? Where do I find out considering that patheos.com is obviously biased?
I also gave more money when a church basket was shoved under my nose once a week. I'm not any less generous of a person today, probably more. It's not exactly charity if the money goes to your own church, and gets used to help deny equal rights for gays and supports the lifestyle of hypocritical preachers:
Either way, good luck on becoming a "saint" whilst denying equal rights to other religions and gays.
Btw what Christian heritage does America have? As I know native Americans had many religions....
A protestant heritage. When you're talking about modern day Americans, you're not talking about native Americans. Thus when you're talking about modern day American's Christian heritage, you look back at where that has come from.
:::::::::::::::::::::
"Since emotional processes can work faster than the mind, it takes a power stronger than the mind to bend perception, override emotional circuitry, and provide us with intuitive feeling instead. It takes the power of the heart."
Snip
So basically you believe that the sinoatrial node is your soul?
NOOO DON'T TAKE THE MYSTERY AWAY
I can hear your cognitive dissonance scream.
Ready to answer my questions yet, or still dodging?
Yeah, and I think that bronze-age folklore and prostrating before an invisible sky daddy is dull and oppressive, but I don't try to enact those beliefs into actual law like you guys do. Luckily what you want doesn't matter. That's why we have a constitution. If the majority of people wanted to bring back slavery, then that's just too damn bad, because it's unconstitutional. Likewise, you can't force a religion on the public sector when it means alienating every religion except yours. That's how you establish equality, by not picking one religion over another. The founders made that crystal clear.
Prayer in schools was never banned. People are allowed to pray in school, so I don't see what the problem is. As for religious imagery, keep it, I don't think anybody really cares, least of all me. As long as we get a statue of the Buddha next to a statue of Jesus. Quote:
Your concern about the "price of religion" is pretty amusing.
Are these adjusted for population? Are the individuals polled once they donate or before? Who did this survey? Where do I find out considering that patheos.com is obviously biased?
I also gave more money when a church basket was shoved under my nose once a week. I'm not any less generous of a person today, probably more. It's not exactly charity if the money goes to your own church, and gets used to help deny equal rights for gays and supports the lifestyle of hypocritical preachers:
Either way, good luck on becoming a "saint" whilst denying equal rights to other religions and gays.
Statistics war, go go go!
Actually I don't care.
My point was that while you are busy nitpicking at religious folks for not selling all that they own and giving everything to the poor, non-religious folks aren't really doing much better. I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children. I'm sure you could buy a few months worth of meals for a single family from the money you would get. Of course, I would never expect anyone to do such a thing - charity is not about expectations. If it were, it would not be charity. I just think you're being a little unfair toward religious people. And religious institutions. Your attitude has a strong hint of pompous elitism and it smells awful.
I'm all for non-religious people giving to the poor. If that's improving, then all for the better. It's not a competition.
My point was that while you are busy nitpicking at religious folks for not selling all that they own and giving everything to the poor, non-religious folks aren't really doing much better. I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children. I'm sure you could buy a few months worth of meals for a single family from the money you would get. Of course, I would never expect anyone to do such a thing - charity is not about expectations. If it were, it would not be charity. I just think you're being a little unfair toward religious people. And religious institutions. Your attitude has a strong hint of pompous elitism and it smells awful.
I'm all for non-religious people giving to the poor. If that's improving, then all for the better. It's not a competition.
You're the one that brought it up. I already told you I have no problem with religious people in general. My original criticism was of the catholic anti-gay organizations which use "charity" money to fight against equal rights for gays, as well as your desire to put your religion above all others in the public sphere. As usual, pointing this out qualifies as "pompous elitism", but pushing your beliefs on others on the basis of outdated bronze-age folklore is a-ok! You people truly have a strange sense of entitlement. 60 pages, and so far EternalWraith was the only religious person I've seen to actually call someone out for homophobia.
It truly is amazing how easily you guys get offended that someone challenges the idea of an invisible man in the sky creating everything. Yet you have zero problems:
1) Telling gays they can't marry.
2) Telling people that they can't get an abortion.
3) Telling science teachers to teach ID (goddidit) in schools.
4) Promoting your religion in the public domain at the expense of other religions.
And everything in between. It's just hypocrisy of the highest order, and you'll have to forgive me if I show no respect for this. I repeat, if you're going to dictate to other people how to live their lives, then you're opening yourself up to criticism that you rightfully deserve.
Quote:
I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children.
Because I don't have enough pretensions to moral superiority to follow a holy book that explicitly tells me to sell all my possessions, nor am I trying to become a saint.
My point was that while you are busy nitpicking at religious folks for not selling all that they own and giving everything to the poor, non-religious folks aren't really doing much better. I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children. I'm sure you could buy a few months worth of meals for a single family from the money you would get. Of course, I would never expect anyone to do such a thing - charity is not about expectations. If it were, it would not be charity. I just think you're being a little unfair toward religious people. And religious institutions. Your attitude has a strong hint of pompous elitism and it smells awful.
I'm all for non-religious people giving to the poor. If that's improving, then all for the better. It's not a competition.
The religious use the bible to deny the rights of others. The religious also don't follow the bible very well.
Secondly, you're making shit up.
Quote:
The current most charitable individuals in the United States, based on “Estimated Lifetime Giving,” are:
36 there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining with (lit. having) a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre.
Aliens and Ufo?
Gospel of Thomas (on alms, fasting, prayer)
14. Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.
Gospel of Mary
38. Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.
Lol that golden throne looks sweet and probably does wonders for the ego. Though Catholics aren`t all that bad, according to the wiki: The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and medical services in the world
You`re being judgemental with the pics you are posting.
It truly is amazing how easily you guys get offended that someone challenges the idea of an invisible man in the sky creating everything. Yet you have zero problems:
1) Telling gays they can't marry.
2) Telling people that they can't get an abortion.
3) Telling science teachers to teach ID (goddidit) in schools.
4) Promoting your religion in the public domain at the expense of other religions.
Invisible man in the sky is more bronze age thinking. We dont view it that way.
1. Blargh. I couldn`t care if gays marry, but we dont view it as legitimate. Difference of opinion. In 2050 people will be able to marry Robots and sooner have sex with it. http://www.livescience.com/1951-forecast-sex-marriage-robots-2050.html
2. I dont support abortion. Put the kid up for adoption or something?. In the worst of circumstances , it might be needed. But its done too haphazardly and without a care today, with people just killing off the responsibility from their actions/mistakes.
3. I would have been a God-believer a long time ago if they taught intelligent design at school. Pity you actually have to go digging up real 100% scientific data on it later on in life to actually know it for yourself.
4. We have major religions(Christianity/Judaism, Islam, Hiduism, Buddhism), minor, and the rest contemporary, `new age` etc.
Brief outlines of each should be taught in schools. Christianity is the claim of X,Y , Z based on A , B and C. Islam is so and so and so about this and that. Buddhism is a practice of meditative practices and teachings centered around awareness etc and deriving from the teaching of " ".
Any of the religions with substantial history and knowledge and background to it should be presentable.
Religion forms a very real undeniable history of the world.
Evolution can be taught in school as long as we are not jumping to conclusions on matters, and also filling people in on the many many gaps the `theory` presents. That would be a scientific way of doing it, rather than brushing off our current misguided understanding of evolution as fact/truth.
Is it possible to use another woman's womb as a kind of "test tube" for a baby given the necessary compatible stuff are in place? The fetus would not be using the woman's own egg-cell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Haha, yes. Lol. You have no idea how gullible you are to pseudo-science.
The research is also on-going.
So what? If the research has verifiable results, then then it's going to get published in the scientific literature, etc. You know, like the verifiable results from past and on-going research in evolution, abiogenesis, anthropogenic global warming, etc (i.e. real science).
Yea, also, kinda completely irrelevant.
Only to an individual that is tainted by religion as yourself. Hint: Do some research on dopamine.
Although its influence is far-reaching, the gut is not the seat of any conscious thoughts or decision-making.
I'm glad you've come around to agree that the heart has as much decision and consciousness as the gut.
Its because you dont have answers to my questions.
Did you ever answer my question about whether you had faith that god would save you should you jump off a skyscraper?
You`d just say "Go do your own research" whenever your crazy theories hit a dead center.
So, you don't know how to use the Internet to do research on science topics? I'm not surprised.
I fixed these for you:
"1. This question has already been dealt with by science.
2. The universe was obviously not created by the mythical christian god as explained by science, logic and reason. All religious people live in wonderland.
3. Everything is true. The bible has proven to be perfectly fallible, in many different cases and especially historically.
the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible continues to crumble."
I dont see how this relates to a fictional book such as Harry potter. Most religions are like that?, yes probably indeed, but not the Bible. It can stand on its own merit.
You have been kept in the darkness of religion for too long that you have become blind. I know you're too scared to admit the bible is false; it's the natural response of all ignoramuses. However, once your open your mind to science, you shall be saved.
ProzaicMuze can deal with that. You`re use of intelligent design is a bit subjective here. We cant call the appendix useless. Sure we can do without it, and it seems a more pesky organ than others, but this can also be said of other organs too under/during z, x,y conditions.
I'm so glad you see that the appendix was quite useful to our ape-like evolutionary ancestors. Unfortunately, it appears you also believe the brain is useless in all conditions. :/
Only the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the omnipotence to create non-pesky organs for all conditions.
By the way, did anyone listen to Tech Nation on Sunday. Dr. Moira Gunn interviewed Steven Pinker, Harvard psychology professor, and author of "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined."
P.S. FYI to all the religious people: There's nothing about angels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumReligion does not belong in the public sector. You can't push your religion on other people without also alienating atheists, muslims, jews, sikhs, and everyone else but you. If the pubic sector remains secular (like it says in the constitution), then nobody will get offended. This is called equality. If you want to teach all points of view, then you should also teach the Norse creation myth. Two lands called Muspellsheim and Niflheim were created ex nihilo. Ymir was the father of the frost giants. He sweated out the first two giants, male & female, out of his underarm. His sons later rebelled and killed him. This caused so much blood to pour forth that everyone drowned, except Beregelmir and his wife, who managed to launch a small boat and escape.
Do you want to deny Norse teachings in the classroom? Or what about the Hindu/Chinese concept of the world-turtle? Should that be taught in the science classroom too? If your answer is no, then how can you complain about "arrogant atheists" pushing their beliefs on you when you're perfectly willing to do it to others?
True, Westboro Baptist isn't a good example. Nevertheless, when it comes to religion, everyone is an extremist. My parents and some of my friends are anti-homophobic & anti-semetic. They're normal decent people, but these are extreme beliefs. You don't understand what kind of price you have to pay for subscribing to religion. I feel the need to post this picture again:
15 million dollars. Where do you think that money comes from? If these people spent as much time doing something good as they did trying to deny equal rights, then maybe something would get done. Again, everyone is an extremist. These guys are on the wrong side of history, and their bigotry will die with them. Our children will look back on these people the same way we look back on people that denied equal rights for women and blacks.
@Gradius12: Go
You wouldnt care if it was denying the rape rights though would you?
Same deal, people such as myself consider it sick, so people such as myself would pay to keep it out.
Yeah US education is already pretty bad. Wonder when will they teach flat-earth "theory".
@Taintedwisp: Go Rape is an offensive crime.
Being gay is crime against idiots...
@Gradius12: Go
Religion belongs in the public sector because the public is religious. I consider a white-washed secular culture to be oppressive and, quite frankly, dull. America should own its Christian heritage instead of trying to slide it behind a curtain for the sake of a vocal atheist minority. Allowing things like prayer in schools or religious imagery in government offices should be allowed, though not forced. Should religion be taught in science classrooms? Of course not. I never advocated such a thing. Religion belongs in theology classrooms. I think it's a common error for people to confuse science with atheism - the two are not inseparable. Atheism often hijacks science for its own justification, but science and philosophy are two different schools, as are science and theology and philosophy and theology.
Obviously I disagree with your extremely broad statement that "when it comes to religion, everyone is an extremist." An extremist by what metric? If you mean by the human population, then I am extremely skeptical since it seems most people have some spiritual or religious belief. If you mean all humans throughout history, again I'm extremely skeptical since throughout history, it seems most humans have held spiritual or religious beliefs for a significant portion of their lives. Of course, if you mean "most of my friends" then I can't really contest that argument...
Your concern about the "price of religion" is pretty amusing.
@BasharTeg: Go If not secular, why not have a muslim America right away? Or buddhist America?
Secularism isnt placed for atheism, its placed that all religion would be equal.
And yeah theology and philosophy are for adults.
Btw what Christian heritage does America have? As I know native Americans had many religions....
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYeah, and I think that bronze-age folklore and prostrating before an invisible sky daddy is dull and oppressive, but I don't try to enact those beliefs into actual law like you guys do. Luckily what you want doesn't matter. That's why we have a constitution. If the majority of people wanted to bring back slavery, then that's just too damn bad, because it's unconstitutional. Likewise, you can't force a religion on the public sector when it means alienating every religion except yours. That's how you establish equality, by not picking one religion over another. The founders made that crystal clear.
Prayer in schools was never banned. People are allowed to pray in school, so I don't see what the problem is. As for religious imagery, keep it, I don't think anybody really cares, least of all me. As long as we get a statue of the Buddha next to a statue of Jesus.
Are these adjusted for population? Are the individuals polled once they donate or before? Who did this survey? Where do I find out considering that patheos.com is obviously biased?
35% of donations goes to religious causes if the candidates are anything to go by: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/01/29/sunday-review/29giving-gfx.html?ref=sunday-review
In the meantime, atheists give money to causes that don't directly benefit themselves: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/atheist-charity-giving_n_1163925.html
And some more food for thought since you like statistics:
http://humourtouch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Good-without-God.png
http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
I also gave more money when a church basket was shoved under my nose once a week. I'm not any less generous of a person today, probably more. It's not exactly charity if the money goes to your own church, and gets used to help deny equal rights for gays and supports the lifestyle of hypocritical preachers:
Either way, good luck on becoming a "saint" whilst denying equal rights to other religions and gays.
A protestant heritage. When you're talking about modern day Americans, you're not talking about native Americans. Thus when you're talking about modern day American's Christian heritage, you look back at where that has come from.
So basically you believe that the sinoatrial node is your soul?
NOOO DON'T TAKE THE MYSTERY AWAY
I can hear your cognitive dissonance scream.
Ready to answer my questions yet, or still dodging?
Statistics war, go go go!
Actually I don't care.
My point was that while you are busy nitpicking at religious folks for not selling all that they own and giving everything to the poor, non-religious folks aren't really doing much better. I'm curious why you are still in this conversation and why you haven't sold your computer to help some starting African children. I'm sure you could buy a few months worth of meals for a single family from the money you would get. Of course, I would never expect anyone to do such a thing - charity is not about expectations. If it were, it would not be charity. I just think you're being a little unfair toward religious people. And religious institutions. Your attitude has a strong hint of pompous elitism and it smells awful.
I'm all for non-religious people giving to the poor. If that's improving, then all for the better. It's not a competition.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYou're the one that brought it up. I already told you I have no problem with religious people in general. My original criticism was of the catholic anti-gay organizations which use "charity" money to fight against equal rights for gays, as well as your desire to put your religion above all others in the public sphere. As usual, pointing this out qualifies as "pompous elitism", but pushing your beliefs on others on the basis of outdated bronze-age folklore is a-ok! You people truly have a strange sense of entitlement. 60 pages, and so far EternalWraith was the only religious person I've seen to actually call someone out for homophobia.
It truly is amazing how easily you guys get offended that someone challenges the idea of an invisible man in the sky creating everything. Yet you have zero problems:
1) Telling gays they can't marry.
2) Telling people that they can't get an abortion.
3) Telling science teachers to teach ID (goddidit) in schools.
4) Promoting your religion in the public domain at the expense of other religions.
And everything in between. It's just hypocrisy of the highest order, and you'll have to forgive me if I show no respect for this. I repeat, if you're going to dictate to other people how to live their lives, then you're opening yourself up to criticism that you rightfully deserve.
Because I don't have enough pretensions to moral superiority to follow a holy book that explicitly tells me to sell all my possessions, nor am I trying to become a saint.
Ah, I see what this is about. There's no point in trying to converse with you any further.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe hurt feelings card. The last refuge of a loser in a debate. Bye.
The religious use the bible to deny the rights of others. The religious also don't follow the bible very well.
Secondly, you're making shit up.
Gospel of Peter (forbidden Gospels)
36 there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining with (lit. having) a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulchre.
Aliens and Ufo?
Gospel of Thomas (on alms, fasting, prayer)
14. Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.
Gospel of Mary
38. Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@Gradius12: Go
Lol that golden throne looks sweet and probably does wonders for the ego. Though Catholics aren`t all that bad, according to the wiki:
The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and medical services in the world
You`re being judgemental with the pics you are posting.
It truly is amazing how easily you guys get offended that someone challenges the idea of an invisible man in the sky creating everything. Yet you have zero problems:
1) Telling gays they can't marry.
2) Telling people that they can't get an abortion.
3) Telling science teachers to teach ID (goddidit) in schools.
4) Promoting your religion in the public domain at the expense of other religions.
Invisible man in the sky is more bronze age thinking. We dont view it that way.
1. Blargh. I couldn`t care if gays marry, but we dont view it as legitimate. Difference of opinion. In 2050 people will be able to marry Robots and sooner have sex with it. http://www.livescience.com/1951-forecast-sex-marriage-robots-2050.html
2. I dont support abortion. Put the kid up for adoption or something?. In the worst of circumstances , it might be needed. But its done too haphazardly and without a care today, with people just killing off the responsibility from their actions/mistakes.
3. I would have been a God-believer a long time ago if they taught intelligent design at school. Pity you actually have to go digging up real 100% scientific data on it later on in life to actually know it for yourself.
4. We have major religions(Christianity/Judaism, Islam, Hiduism, Buddhism), minor, and the rest contemporary, `new age` etc.
Brief outlines of each should be taught in schools. Christianity is the claim of X,Y , Z based on A , B and C. Islam is so and so and so about this and that. Buddhism is a practice of meditative practices and teachings centered around awareness etc and deriving from the teaching of " ".
Any of the religions with substantial history and knowledge and background to it should be presentable.
Religion forms a very real undeniable history of the world.
Evolution can be taught in school as long as we are not jumping to conclusions on matters, and also filling people in on the many many gaps the `theory` presents. That would be a scientific way of doing it, rather than brushing off our current misguided understanding of evolution as fact/truth.
@Eiviyn: Go
Bill Gates sounds more agnostic. Atleast, from his interviews.
Is it possible to use another woman's womb as a kind of "test tube" for a baby given the necessary compatible stuff are in place? The fetus would not be using the woman's own egg-cell.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
He has no religion. Call it whatever you want.
@EternalWraith: Go
Haha no. Thats not the case. Lol.
Haha, yes. Lol. You have no idea how gullible you are to pseudo-science.
The research is also on-going.
So what? If the research has verifiable results, then then it's going to get published in the scientific literature, etc. You know, like the verifiable results from past and on-going research in evolution, abiogenesis, anthropogenic global warming, etc (i.e. real science).
Yea, also, kinda completely irrelevant.
Only to an individual that is tainted by religion as yourself. Hint: Do some research on dopamine.
Although its influence is far-reaching, the gut is not the seat of any conscious thoughts or decision-making.
I'm glad you've come around to agree that the heart has as much decision and consciousness as the gut.
Its because you dont have answers to my questions.
Did you ever answer my question about whether you had faith that god would save you should you jump off a skyscraper?
You`d just say "Go do your own research" whenever your crazy theories hit a dead center.
So, you don't know how to use the Internet to do research on science topics? I'm not surprised.
I fixed these for you:
"1. This question has already been dealt with by science. 2. The universe was obviously not created by the mythical christian god as explained by science, logic and reason. All religious people live in wonderland. 3. Everything is true. The bible has proven to be perfectly fallible, in many different cases and especially historically.
the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible continues to crumble."
I dont see how this relates to a fictional book such as Harry potter. Most religions are like that?, yes probably indeed, but not the Bible. It can stand on its own merit.
You have been kept in the darkness of religion for too long that you have become blind. I know you're too scared to admit the bible is false; it's the natural response of all ignoramuses. However, once your open your mind to science, you shall be saved.
ProzaicMuze can deal with that. You`re use of intelligent design is a bit subjective here. We cant call the appendix useless. Sure we can do without it, and it seems a more pesky organ than others, but this can also be said of other organs too under/during z, x,y conditions.
I'm so glad you see that the appendix was quite useful to our ape-like evolutionary ancestors. Unfortunately, it appears you also believe the brain is useless in all conditions. :/ Only the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the omnipotence to create non-pesky organs for all conditions.
By the way, did anyone listen to Tech Nation on Sunday. Dr. Moira Gunn interviewed Steven Pinker, Harvard psychology professor, and author of "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined."
P.S. FYI to all the religious people: There's nothing about angels.