Cobol - Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

Author

Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

Alistair

2008-01-21, 7:55 am

On 21 Jan, 02:48, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
ty[color=darkred]
ite[color=darkred]
>
>
red.[color=darkred]
e[color=darkred]
>
>
long[color=darkred]
>
> But, for those of us that believe it, it certainly explains the behavior
> described above. =A0Pushing limits is one thing, but lying and direct
> disobedience is quite another.
>
ten.[color=darkred]
>
nts'[color=darkred]
>
> It's not negative at all. =A0How can I fault my child for being born with
> the same sinful nature that his mother and I were also born with? =A0:)
> It's just something we have to deal with. =A0We train their behavior until=

> they grow old enough for us to also train their hearts. =A0Hopefully, by
> the time the heart is trained, we don't have to be training anymore - we
> give guidance on how to view situations based on principle, and let them
> make decisions. =A0If we feel that it's the wrong one, we'll explain to
> them why we feel they could have made a better one, and they learn.
>
> There's also a concept in Scripture called the "age of accountability."
> =A0 It's not a magic number, per se, but it's the age at which they have
> matured enough to understand the concept that they are sinners, that
> Jesus has paid the debt for that sin, and that they can accept this
> payment. =A0Babies that die aren't condemned to hell.
>

I was always under the impression that unbaptised babies go to hell.

Alistair

2008-01-25, 6:56 pm

On 24 Jan, 23:47, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sounds like Voltaire. He said in a hundred years Christianity would cease
> to exist. Last time I checked, there was a Bible organization using his old
> house. God does, indeed, have a sense of humor.

Yes, he created humans (malformed unstable evolutionary prototypes)
and has allowed us to poison our nest.

>
>
>
> Well, my point is that we both have faith in our belief systems.

All I said was that science will prevail.

> Neither
> of us are 100% totally objective evidence driven in our beliefs.

How is any belief in science less than 100% objective?

> The vast
> majority of non-believers are unwilling to admit this, because they much
> prefer to insist that they don't need faith, they have "evidence,"

You're confusing a belief in a (religious) concept with a belief in a
verifiable and reproducible experimental result. No atheist can have
evidence that god does not exist. All we have is the refutation of
superstitions. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You have failed to provide irrefutable evidence for a deity. On the
balance of probability there is no god.

> while
> insisting believers are somehow less valid because "they need faith."

Believe in your refutable and redundant concepts if you wish. The only
valid faith is that which can (for the observer) be experimentally
proved. Clearly, especially as you have taken such a hiding here, your
faith is very real to you. I would argue that your standard of proof
is not as high as mine and I would not be satisfied by your
experiences.

> And that is absolute rubbish! Atheists are just as faith based as believers,
> and in fact, are believers in a religion: Atheism. Atheism is a man-made
> "god" just as they insist believers have created.

There is no hint of divinity or deity about atheism. Atheism is not a
religion.

Alistair

2008-01-29, 6:56 pm

On 25 Jan, 18:06, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> One's religion is one's belief system about God, the supernatural and
> other related issues. Your belief system on those things is atheism. Your
> belief in no god is as much your religion as my belief in God.
>

This is only true if you accept the widest and loosest definition
provided for the word religion:

<Quote from Wikipedia>
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by
a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious
law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions,
writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic
experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices
related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication
stemming from shared conviction.
</Quote>

A better definition is that a religion requires a belief in a
spiritual entity and a god-head. Atheism is not a believer in either
and does not qualify as a religion, in my book. If you wish to persist
in your misrepresentation of atheism then you will accomplish nothing
except bolstering your own poorly founded beliefs.

>
>
> I suspect I have spent far more time studying the Bible than you (my
> apologies if this is wrong) and I do not see the Bible that way at all.

Reading the bible and studying it are not the same.

>
> You accept current scientific theories because they fit what you want
> to believe.

I accept science because I see that on the balance of probabilities it
is more likely to be correct than religious views.

> No one has proven evolution, for example,

Not true. There is no point in debating this point with some one who
believes that the world started 4000 years before christ was born.

>
> I'm not offering a proof. I'm offering you a clear and decisive way for

The only thing that you have managed to do is to raise my ire and my
blood pressure.

Sponsored Links