Search results

Hey hescommin..troops are troops are troops. They're just people supporting their country; they deserve our support, regardless of where they're from.

Um, but that's taken out of context...he was referring to the irony in searching for God on the basis of terrible natural disasters such as the tsunami.

What exactly is your thought process in coming to that conclusion Marcy?

I would not say that Christians are 'moving away' from creationism, but rather justifying the idea with a different set of evidence. Think about it logically: before there was no such 'intelligent designer' theory, and now there is. Thus there must be some movement in that direction from the...

There were no natural disasters during Jesus' time Silent? What makes you say that?

Again, of course I am not saying it can be 'proven.' But it is a scientific theory, 'scientific' being the operative word. This is just petty semantics though... Creationism is a philosophical belief based upon the assumption that life and the universe were too intelligently created for God...

The fact that there is not enough evidence for evolution to be proven with scientific vices is not at stake here; the point is that it is founded on scientific principles, whereas creationism is not.

Free will is tricky, and we've discussed that topic to death, so I'ma gonna stay away from that at the moment.  As for my 'most athiests are reasonable by nature' statement, I did not mean to imply that theists were not.  The percentage of 'reasonable' theists is likely very similar to athiests...

That is not refusing to believe hescomin. It's just requiring a certain standard of evidence before choosing to believe in something. That's perfectly reasonable, as most athiests are by nature. Please don't say that athiests 'refuse to believe,' for they do not, and I find it insulting.

We probably should stay away from evolutution, since there are many holes with the theory, but you are right in that Darwin intended his theory to be a mere explanation of how God did his work. Most everyone who called him a heretic ignored the final lines of his paper, which attributed the...

Ah..I see it now. Thanky much.

It appears that, at least at the moment, the religious discussion forum is unavailable. Does anyone know things about this?

For those of you who said that X was kiss and O was hug, you are correct! Basically the story goes that it all began in medieval ages, when many people were illiterate. Instead of signing their names on important documents, they would sign an 'X' and then 'seal it with a kiss.' Eventually the X...

Pshhh...Devil May Cry is the best of that genre. So much style Dante has.

Just a little fun trivia for you alls. I assume you have heard of 'X's and 'O's, or hugs and kisses. Or is it vice versa? My question to you all is this: Which is which? I'm interested in seeing your responses. : ) No cheating!

I agree with DV. Science is not an enormous conspiracy against the psychology of religion and faith; it is merely a vehicle to obtain truth. There is no fantastical ulterior motive present throughout the scientific community to undermine religious theology. What science discovers may do that...

How is the Bible infallible? How can you make such a statement? It deals almost entirely with intangibles.

The question that arrises there is, how can you discern the two from each other?

You're right, there has to be an original 'uncaused cause' to everything, aka 'God' as we commonly call it today, but I do not believe that that uncaused cause is as complex and dramatized as most religious thought proscribes.

DV has spoken about that book quite a bit...and about how it's riddled with logic holes. Of course I myself can't discount the book until I've read it myself, but I am sure DV would have much to say on the subject. Too bad he has a job now. ; )