Utopianflame

The underlined portion I never said. I even said earlier that's not what I said. Furthermore, nowhere did I say they all professed to hear the word of God. I said, and I quote (Page 98): Utopianflame wrote: Sly, they profess to *follow* the word of god, not to hear it personally. Sly Wizard wrote: ...Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of prayer in most religions. Now by my (and apparently Tryto's as well) understanding that is saying that prayer is hearing the word of god personally.

Speaking to god, ie prayer isnt the same thing as god speaking back to you.

Sly, they profess to *follow* the word of god, not to hear it personally. If god spoke to any given person directly that makes them a prophet. Certainly in Islam god speaking to you would be a great heresy as Muhammed is according the Islam the last prophet.

Believing a religion = hearing God speak? Um, are you sure? I have to admit, thats an awful lot of prophets.

Saruman, there is more to Radiometric dating than just Carbon-14 dating, in particular you might want to look at Uranium-Lead dating. What evidence do you have for it being under a million years old? You go by god? So god talks to you then?

This works both ways, regardless of the position they choose. That depends on the branch of science in question, certainly phsyics is never going to tell you why the charge on an electron is what is, if only because the supposition that everything needs a why requires a reasoning creator, who in turn needs a creator and so ad infinintum. On the other hand biology does a pretty good job of answering the others, we ended up the way we are because it was advantageous of our ancestors to be this way. Traits that providided an edge in competitive society survived and those with them prospered. Those that crippled the one with them generally died out. I guess I would say that lifes only purpose is life itself. The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. ~ George Bernard Shaw I'm sorry that you find reality so overwhelming that you could not cope with it without a cushion to protect you from it. All things come to an end, I see no reason to fear the inevitable and hence I am not afraid of death. In fact given the choice between mortality and eternal life I would take mortality, the idea of being conscious for eternity is not exactly an appealing one for me.

BlueLancer the traditional way around the Geneva conventions is to declare the people you plan on torturing "Unlawful enemy combatants" so they dont count as POW's. Still violates the UN charter against torture of course but since when has the Bush adminstration cared for the UN.

Where is this? :o Its in Kings 7:23

Ginger warrior was being sarcastic, thats why the link he posted was from Conservapedia instead of anywhere slightly grounded in reality.

I guess someone at that church rather liked Borat.

For me the stupidity of the RSOF stopped being so entertaining after they renamed the rants forum.

Yes, but as we all know, Atheists are more likely to commit suicide as a result of a divorce, stupid. Just accept marriage and homosexuality is wrong 'coz God says so. It makes perfect sense. If you say otherwise, you're just persecuting people who follow God. It doesn't make sense at all. God, according to Christians, gave us free will for a reason. Just because your fairy tale God tells you to believe something doesn't mean a large sector of the human population should suffer discrimination. Oh, and yes, I am persecuting people for believing in God. A real all-loving God wouldn't have created gay people who are automatically guarenteed to eternity in hell. I think you need to take your sarcasm meter in for some repairs.

Sometimes reality becomes so self evident that even Fox can't ignore it, not very often mind you.

The Bible also states that Pi is three. We also came to the conclusion that the bible should not be taken literally - Genesis least of all. If parts or even large chunks of the Bible "should not be taken literally" why should any of it be taken seriously at all? Sorry, should've edited this into last post. I dont think it should, others would disagree. The conclusion was back on page 75 or so though, that you can not take the entire of the bible literally.

The Bible also states that Pi is three. We also came to the conclusion that the bible should not be taken literally - Genesis least of all.

Saruman what link? You havent posted one in the pages that I have read.

Creationism is not science, ergo it does not belong in science class, if you want to teach it in a class on religous studies feel free. Evolution on the other hand is a widely accepted testable and tested (if incomplete) and hence does have a place in a science class, in particular one about biology. Also evolution has nothing at all to do with how the world started.

Its not actually a view, its a question, hence the "?" at the end of it. To you the answer is "god gave us dominion over the earth". It's called selfishness, "Me first" is the creed. Is being selfish morally right?

For capital punishment: Killing is morally wrong. You have killed someone, therefore we are going to kill you. Which of course takes you back to square one. Morality is defined by society as a whole and is not a personal thing, consequently I do hold some beliefs that are morally wrong. I also know that my personal code of ethics is not free of contradictions. The most fundamental of my beliefs is probably that people are not things, they are not tools to be used as you see fit for your own benefits. I do however eat meat and we treat the animals as things and use them for our benefit with little to no regard for them. By what right do we as a species claim dominion over the rest of the world and all beings in it?

You're morally deprived. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, husbands can kill their wives, because they got into a fight with them. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, America will be worse off than most countries. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, Religion will be banned. All I can say is, if we stay the course, in 50 years, I won't be proud of anything. The fact is, Obama is an Atheistic morally deprived President Elect. You really do just make nonsense up as you go along dont you? [/hide] Yea, I made that up, I doubt it'll be that bad, but it's about setting principles, and having a good moral standard. And at Megakillr, I realize religion is a choice, but I also realize that some religions set good moral standards, while others don't. And, in my opinion, abortion does not constitute good moral boundaries. Let me guess, those with good moral standards are those that share the same standards as you do right, and those that dont are the ones that do not?

You're morally deprived. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, husbands can kill their wives, because they got into a fight with them. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, America will be worse off than most countries. Who knows, maybe in 50 years, Religion will be banned. All I can say is, if we stay the course, in 50 years, I won't be proud of anything. The fact is, Obama is an Atheistic morally deprived President Elect. You really do just make nonsense up as you go along dont you?

Heh.I've been awake for 24 hours with nothing to do...I'll probably be asleep soon,hopefully.Gotta wait for the Redbull to die off (I had it like...19 hours ago ffs.) Anywho I think I came up with my own idea...I'll draw up plans and if I still think it might work by then I'll pop it in here. http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/ ... 861,00.htm Humanity has built some pretty damn big magnets in its time.

How about the complete lack of sesnitivity in subjects that if you cant handle carefully yourself then you should have someone who can speak for you. The warrantless spying program. The use and abuse of the state secrets doctrine to quell any lawsuit you didnt like. The use and abuse of the national security letters. Ultimately i'm a civil libertarian so there are quite alot of things I find objectionable about Bush and his administration.

Strictly speaking you are a federal republic not a democracy. There are no 'true' democracies in the world today because the system of direct government by the people just doesnt scale up, at the very best you get democracy by proxy. I do trust we can apply this to those who voted for Bush?

Pretty common to do so in the UK.