jesus is god......lmao
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
I don't discount in the least all that science has done.
But, tell me, has science discovered the reason we exist?
Has science found our real purpose in life?
You can discount the significance of these questions, but to most reasonable people, these questions are more important than how the physical world works, and the answer to these questions is more important than any possible scientific discovery.
Science will always have limited conclusions, until it has unlimited tools at its disposal.
Show me a man of unlimited sensory perception, unlimited intellect, unlimited time, and unlimited logic...and then perhaps you can make a forceful argument based on his conclusions.
With all our advancement in materialism, science, and modern technology, the most important questions remain unanswered by the atheistic scientists.
Regarding this statement:
in THIS game here you must support or prove what you claim in accordance with the RULES OF REASON!
In your game perhaps, but who decided that you would make the rules? You play your game and think you win, just like chidren who dress up as adults think they know how to play house like their parents.
You make up the rules, and cannot even prove that your conclusion, your rules, are the right ones to have.
It is an assumption on your part, a belief system, creed and dogma, and you hold onto it with the same faith that Theists hold onto their beliefs.
Face it, you are a practicioner of the religion of science fanatic who not only doesn't practice tolerance of other's belief systems, but persecutes them.
But, tell me, has science discovered the reason we exist?
Has science found our real purpose in life?
You can discount the significance of these questions, but to most reasonable people, these questions are more important than how the physical world works, and the answer to these questions is more important than any possible scientific discovery.
Science will always have limited conclusions, until it has unlimited tools at its disposal.
Show me a man of unlimited sensory perception, unlimited intellect, unlimited time, and unlimited logic...and then perhaps you can make a forceful argument based on his conclusions.
With all our advancement in materialism, science, and modern technology, the most important questions remain unanswered by the atheistic scientists.
Regarding this statement:
in THIS game here you must support or prove what you claim in accordance with the RULES OF REASON!
In your game perhaps, but who decided that you would make the rules? You play your game and think you win, just like chidren who dress up as adults think they know how to play house like their parents.
You make up the rules, and cannot even prove that your conclusion, your rules, are the right ones to have.
It is an assumption on your part, a belief system, creed and dogma, and you hold onto it with the same faith that Theists hold onto their beliefs.
Face it, you are a practicioner of the religion of science fanatic who not only doesn't practice tolerance of other's belief systems, but persecutes them.
Quote from LongShot:
Jesus about to kill in a most horrible fashion an innocent young child with a sickle?? :eek:
LongShot....run, do not walk to your nearest mental hospital and check yourself in. You might do harm to yourself or others.........sounds like a diffuse schizophrenia with religious overtones.....my my.....the shrinks are going to have a field day!
:eek: 
Just kidding around. I know you are pullin' my chain again.
Imo this is an interesting admission. Christians did have a semi-monopoly until the 60's (maybe 50's) which was the "beginning of the end" for a Christian framework for our country. This officially ended with the recent 10 Commandments decision in Montgomery.
I always say if you want to get a feel for life under a particular ideology, simply go to the country where it is in power. Atheism, humanism, materialism have slowly gained control of our country and so we have four decades to get a feel for the legacy they have left us. I ask these questions:
1. Would you rather walk down the typical American city street in the 40's and 50's or in 2004?
2. Is America more respected globally now or in the 40's and 50's or in 2004?
3. Are children and families better off with the materialist revolution? (Or have families been gutted by the Age of Atheism?)
I know my answer. I'm glad for all the technological and scientific advances of the last 40 years. But in many, many other ways, I think we were better off in the 40's and 50's. We were universally respected and admired globally after World War II. This simply cannot be said today and I think a lot of it has to do with humanistic interventions...
Puh-leez!
Christianity, Hinduism and all other non-Islamic major religions do not have any tradition or canon to promote war. Therefore, those that use Christianity, Hinduism, etc. to promote war do so as an excuse for their own purposes. Don't blame religion for human nature. (There is one glaring exception of course: one of the mainstream branches of Islam is clearly militarily oriented. )
Here's the fact: you give the typical male a lot of military power and a lot of cash and it will go to his head. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He will look for an excuse to justify his war. Some use religion, some use ethicity. But either way, it is not the religion or the ethnic group that is at fault.
Let me ask you this: Hitler fought World War II for the sake of the Germans, the Aryan race. Does that mean the we should abolish the Aryan ethnic group and purge the Germans?
Of course not! In the same way, you cannot purge religion just because some power-hungry fools have at times used religion as an excuse for war!
After WWII, should we have purged the Italians and the Japanese because their leaders used ethnicity to try to build an empire?
After all, they used ethnicity to justify their war, so if we just eliminate the ethnic group, we've eliminted the problem, right? These people must be pre-disposed to war since their leadership used it as an excuse, right?
That's the logic you're using!
(Of course, I don't fault you because you've probably been force fed this through years of a very biased, very liberal education...)
After all, they used ethnicity to justify their war, so if we just eliminate the ethnic group, we've eliminted the problem, right? These people must be pre-disposed to war since their leadership used it as an excuse, right?
That's the logic you're using!
(Of course, I don't fault you because you've probably been force fed this through years of a very biased, very liberal education...)
Your concept of reasonable? Probably not.