Search results

Nonsense. Ernest Becker was basically saying people relied on belief systems as a way of handling the universal fear of death and that a need to deny mortality was fundamentally detrimental to human beings, and responsible for most of the iniquity in the world. It can reasonably be said...

I agree, a larger group or organization is sometimes better acting as a catalyst and can offer advantages to get things done. But still, apparently there was something on top of that needed , as you say, you and others basically followed a religious instruction to serve others. So...

There is essentially no need to belong to any church to do good work. You don’t need to leave bibles all over the place to repair a children's home. How much more humble and non self-serving it is when people do such work purely for the sake of it.

Apart from your usual atrocious grammar and spelling, that's one sentence on which we can agree .

You knew it wouldn't happen last Saturday, so you were in exactly the same position as any other rational person , who knew very well that the religious eccentrics saying it was going to happen, were being ridiculous and wrong. It's not coming any more than it was on Saturday. It's a fairy...

Considering the majority of the population is supposed to have a Christian belief in God, that really doesn't wash.

The main response you've had to opinion which does not accept religion is to get angry and hostile. Your comment about molestation by Catholic priests is evidence. You say you've tolerance and will defend the right for anyone to have opinion, but then you are intolerant when they voice it...

.......but

Well, it clearly was the point that Larson raised, and my response was directed toward it. How is your outburst not being hostile or hateful. The very same things you make accusation of. Apparently you did so merely in defense of superstition

Religion nevertheless is a superstition. It fits the description. Just because voodoo and witchcraft are not culturally accepted forms of superstition, whereas religion is in all it's endless varieties including Christianity, that cannot make religion any less of a superstition.

Well done, that's really intelligent of you.

True enough and and the worn out old "no faith is faith" absurdity was sure to be trotted out too. and voila......... Defending your religious viewpoint by blind faith alone wouldn't require you to make such a fatuous statement Ricter. You must know full well science is all about...

I see, so it's when you spin, that's me spinning. When you make false statements asserting things I don't assume, that's me being arrogant. You think that because something is not known that makes any fanciful thing a possibility? Because it's only science that can find if scientists...

Not necessarily, but......it could? More of that there spin? So the point of your argument goes like this: Because scientists... or mathematicians even, can get math wrong, mathematicians /math / mathematical theory could also be wrong, when it finds no signs of or no need for a sky...

Your point is becoming even more obscure. No one is saying science/ scientists do have the answers to everything...so.... what exactly? Is it that because science doesn't know everything, a mystical supernatural unkown beardy bloke may/did/could have created the universe? Is that what...

Lol. :D I wonder could you include Murray "I'm always one sensible syllable short of the need for a spell checker anyway" [=== :cool: ] T fookin Turtle with that? I'll match the $ amount. Thanks.

It's already been said. There is no need for science to disprove God or other such mythical concepts, nor does it. Stephen Hawking is not musing. Maybe if you’d studied your science a little harder to “A” perhaps, you wouldn’t have said that. He is stating the universe does not...

This is like your "what laws of physics?" style of argument. You don't have a point as it never....."turns out to be wrong"..... without science. The science you say made the mistake, is the only way that CAN find out if it was a mistake. Something that corrects its own mistakes is...

Your point is what...that you can't know it's wrong without the science to show it is? That seems a little point-less if you don't mind me saying.