|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 178 of 432:
| 
Feb 8 22:20 UTC 2006 |
richard, learn to read and comprehend English. These are your words:
> the Christian world, where the image of Jesus on the
> cross is a key of the faith.
The image is *NOT* a "key of the faith". Maybe it is a good "marketing tool",
but that's not what you wrote, is it?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 179 of 432:
|
Feb 8 22:26 UTC 2006 |
only when it's on a keychain.
apparently richard doesnt know much about quakers
j. witnesses, etc
richard...do you think all xtians are of the charismatic
catholic or promise keeper/ dobson dominionist retard school?
you should get out of your apt building more
|
richard
|
|
response 180 of 432:
|
Feb 8 22:33 UTC 2006 |
re #178 if it is a good marketing tool, a great marketing tool, it is in MY
OPINION, a key to the faith. Albaugh I am entitled to that opinion and you
are entitled to disagree.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 181 of 432:
|
Feb 8 22:35 UTC 2006 |
when was the last time you say a quaker
waving aroung a crucifix, dickiebird?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 182 of 432:
|
Feb 9 03:08 UTC 2006 |
Re #173: the web discussions appear to assume that *either* the SoT is the
burial cloth of JC or a medieval hoax. However those are not the only
alternatives. It could be a medieval burial cloth for a medieval person.
Can you cite a site for absolutely certain evidence that the shroud was
prepared with the purpose of being a hoax in medieval times rather than as
being simply the shroud for a human body from that period? Certainly even
if it is nothing more than the latter it could have subsequently be
*claimed* to be the shroud for JC. Making such a claim would then be a
hoax, but not the shroud itself.
|
bru
|
|
response 183 of 432:
|
Feb 9 03:49 UTC 2006 |
actually, the latest report says the radio carbon dating test was flawed with
detrius from the middle ages caused by the fire that singed the corners with
silver.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 184 of 432:
|
Feb 9 06:11 UTC 2006 |
Well, that is problematic. There are huge controversies over all aspects
of this. Would you please cite a site giving well-documented and agreed upon
evidence for that alleged flaw in the C14 dating? There are sites that
ridicule the fire story.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 185 of 432:
|
Feb 9 09:55 UTC 2006 |
oh just let him believe.
|
tod
|
|
response 186 of 432:
|
Feb 9 16:51 UTC 2006 |
They traced the mitochondria (maternal lineage) DNA back to Ireland. Its
quite possible that its a Sean Penn's bath towel.
|
deadpunk
|
|
response 187 of 432:
|
Feb 10 08:31 UTC 2006 |
"God" deals in faith, right? So maybe, "he" decided
"I'll screw the doubting thomases" - "he" rigged
the results of the carbon dating, and anyone who
puts belief in scientific results over simple faith
- going down! Hey, maybe I'm wrong... and maybe
doubting the wisdom of my words will get you on the
express de-elevator too.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 188 of 432:
|
Feb 10 18:29 UTC 2006 |
so what you are saying is that god is a sadist!
why do you hate the baby jesus, blast-femurrr?!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 189 of 432:
|
Feb 10 18:36 UTC 2006 |
yes richard you are entitled to be wrong.
|
gull
|
|
response 190 of 432:
|
Feb 14 02:02 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:187: See, that's one of the problems I have with Creationism.
To believe it, you have to believe that God did stuff specifically to
mislead us and cause some of us to end up in Hell. It's hard to square
that with a loving God.
I gave up on religion when I realized that there were only two ways to
explain how things happened in the world: Either God doesn't exist, or
God is a mean, arbitrary bastard. In the first case there's nothing to
believe in, and in the second case He doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to worship.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 191 of 432:
|
Feb 14 02:11 UTC 2006 |
I don't see it that way at all.
|
keesan
|
|
response 192 of 432:
|
Feb 14 03:16 UTC 2006 |
Jon, why do you believe in God?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 193 of 432:
|
Feb 14 03:22 UTC 2006 |
Because believing in God is easier than believing that moral, reasoning,
thinking people came from unthinking dead stuff.
|
keesan
|
|
response 194 of 432:
|
Feb 14 03:26 UTC 2006 |
In which case where did God come from?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 195 of 432:
|
Feb 14 03:28 UTC 2006 |
Who says god had to come from anything?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 196 of 432:
|
Feb 14 04:05 UTC 2006 |
Why not try a belief system based on what beliefs are useful, or based on
what beliefs seem most likely to be true, rather than on what beliefs are
easiest? That seems kinda lazy.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 197 of 432:
|
Feb 14 04:22 UTC 2006 |
Lazy or not, its the truth for many people.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 198 of 432:
|
Feb 14 04:27 UTC 2006 |
So it's the epistemological version of sitting on a Lay-Z-Boy in your
underwear watching talk shows and eating Pop-Tarts. Awesome!
|
scholar
|
|
response 199 of 432:
|
Feb 14 05:02 UTC 2006 |
Epistemology has to do with truth belief, not just belief.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 200 of 432:
|
Feb 14 07:00 UTC 2006 |
In a recent book ("Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon")
Daniel C. Dennett suggests that ideas of gods arose in humans because of
the appearance by evolution of what is called "theory of mind". This is
the awareness in humans that other humans are aware, and they respond
accordingly. Thus, first having attributed awareness to others, it was an
easy step to attribute awareness to trees and rocks (Animism), which leads
to polytheism which leads to monotheism. Or, put the way a reviewer of the
book did, "theory of mind" lead to a "hyperactive agent detection device"
that not only alerts us to real dangers, but also generates false
positives, such as believing rocks and trees are imbuded with intentional
minds or spirits".
|
fudge
|
|
response 201 of 432:
|
Feb 14 09:47 UTC 2006 |
Re # 95 who says we have to have been created by anything/anyone?
I fail to understand how people who feel the need for a supernatural creator
to "explain" reality are quite happy to accept its existance without question.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 202 of 432:
|
Feb 14 13:12 UTC 2006 |
resp:201 That last line, I disagree- there are a great many religious
people who DO question their beliefs from time to time. Some even find
that their answers lead them to still believe. I'm not saying if they're
right or wrong- merely they do go through the questioning process.
|