Search results

>No, you missed my point I think. Nope, got it >It could just mean I found the very >thing I was looking for... Exactly. That is not uncommon as I see it. JB

>a person IS his philosophy one and the same :-/ I disagree...especially when it is based on blind faith. I prefer "a person IS his actions one and the same" JB

>turok don't waste your time you got a nutbar on >other end, rules of reason mean nothing to cranks >so whats the point :-/ Though one should separate the judgement of a persons philosophy/religion from the person themselves it is often hard to do and I am as guilty as probably anyone. I...

Me: >I ask because though it is technically possible to answer >yes to all of the above questions and still not be in conflict >with your statement (meaning you were in the occult before >you were "saved"), a different impression could very much >be derived. Shoe: >Not sure what you...

>Yes, it is surprising actually. The supernatural and the >spiritual is always surprising even when it meets and >exceeds your expectations which is what I can >definitely say about my belief system... With the question in mind, this response says essentially...don't confuse me with the...

>I was into the occult before I became a Christian This statement could easily be interpreted several ways but before I get to that let me say this...there seems to be a common corrolation between what cultures call "the occult" and that cultures primary religious beliefs -- meaning if one...

>So, if we accept that Christians' religious experiences are >the real deal according to their personal testimonies then >it would only be fair to accept the testimonies of people >who have non-Christian religious experiences, wouldn't it? >But what about where these religions conflict...

>I think that you think that most believers have what >I call "blind faith" where they never get any confirmation >or assurance of their beliefs. >And this simply is not the case: if nothing happened, >they would not be believers. I believe there are both catagories. I now fall...

Upper right hand corner of this window: "Search" Search for ADX in the archives and you'll find plenty. JB

>I have cited many top level scientists that believe in >design yet are not committed Christians/Jews.... And as described, those would not be atheist/agnostic and would fall within the 7%. They have determined a creator of some kind was at work and just haven't committed to one or...

>Paul Davies for example definitely believes the evidence >leans towards design in the universe but is a committed >agnostic from what I've heard. We simply don't know >how many of the above agnostics believe that design is >a distinct possibility but simply don't believe it's possible...

>The English (Webster's) definition of agnostic is "one >who believes that any ultimate reality is unknowable," >snip> >To complicate things, many people use "agnostic" to >mean someone who has doubts about God's existence >or isn't sure if he exits or not. Well Peter, you know...

More evidence confirming my practice of "value the result and not the man" (meaning nobody is perfect). I find real value in the dragon analogy. I have seen no equal in describing my feelings regarding a supernatural being. JB

>If you knew that Carl Sagan was a big proponent >of teaching evolution as fact-- and you understand >that evolution is far from being a fact ---you know >why I questioned his standing to apply that dragon >analogy. Got it...thanks >Sagan said "Evolution is a fact not a theory."...

jem: >So the way I read it as far as science goes we have no >proof of evolution, we will never have it because the >generational cycles are too long, but since we have >an understanding of heredity, and mutations we are >willing to make the great leap of faith to evolution Well, any...

jem, your post lost me. It may be because I'm unsure where your writing and comments begin/end and other writers begin/end. >Such "evidence"--no matter how important the >dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. >Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to...

Surfer: >however his bias is overwhelmingly evident in the >"blind watch maker" And here somehow I had gotten the impression that you hadn't read it. JB

Axe: >97.3% of our National Academy of Scientists >are non-believers. Axe correction: >Actually... its 93% percent... my memory >was a little off. Pete: >The numbers were 72% atheist, 21% agnostic >(guess we forgot about those guys) I'm sure you recognize - or perhaps not from...

I have a theory that is based completely on non eco thought. It says use theirs and save ours until we need it (which if we do the right thing with alternative research might well be never). JB

>With regard to science and God, I am simply >pointing out that science can't answer the >question of his existence. Are you saying: A: "can't" as in "hasn't yet". Or B: "can't" as in "forever incapable" Thanks JB