betsy

The only proof that atheists will accept will be that comes from science. I cannot just simply invoke my faith. I am debating with atheists or agnostics on this board.

I am not conceding to that. Speaking for myself (based on my own belief), I know that my God is our Creator. No one else. He was not created by anyone or anything. Of course, I'm speaking for myself. Bloodyminded was asking about who might have created the creator. I think he wouldn't just take my word for it that my God is the Creator and He'd always existed, and was not created by anything or anyone. I assume Bloodyminded will want science to give him the answer. I'm pointing out the patience through the century, and still counting, waiting for science to explain about origin....so why not have the same patience for the ID scientists to come up with the explanation regarding the Designer.

Explain. How did he spend our money?

What happened to Shwa and WIP? No answer?

First of all, we're not sure if he did any current crime. What is being repeatedly brought up by Ignatieff is his past crimes. Furthermore, his last sentencing indicated a mental/psychological problem. So yes, I don't care about his leanings....I'm talking about breaking a man publicly for the sake of getting votes! That it's being done by a Liberal leader is not my fault. I ask you, do you approve of Ignatieff's conduct in exploiting Carson's past to his own political gain?

Dawkins initially denied this debate against Rabbi Shmuley Boteach ever happened. This particular debate ignited the following sequence of events. In 2003, Paul Humber had email exchanges with Richard Dawkins reagrding the controversy surrounding that debate. The exchanges offer an insightful profile of Richard Dawkins, a glimpse of his personal side that hides behind the facade of his profession. Excerpts. This actual article is a very long read. Paul G. Humber is Executive Director of Skilton House Ministries, Inc. and a faculty member of the University of Phoenix (Philadelphia Campus http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08%2004.PDF

The values taught in schools "go with the flow." The word "judgement" had been demonized somehow....they associate the word with the negative connotation of being judgemental. We're made to think that it is unnaceptable to make judgements of any kind. How can we make decisions in life if we do not use our judgement? How can we use our better judgement and make proper decisions in life if we have no clear understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In the late 80's, parents were being discouraged to use the word "NO" to children. You don't say no. They said it's negative. Fast track. 20 years later when date-rape was becoming a problem, the educators and the law came up with the slogan, "No means No!" Go figure. Right now it seems there is no clear concept of right and wrong. Children must first know the concept and the basic difference between right and wrong before they get to know that there are some gray areas. We are raising a confused generation....and future generations will be worse if we do not rectify the problem.

I've said it numerous times. Speaking for myself, I don't need any proof! Because of my faith, I'm not surprised about Intelligent Design. They call it by any name. Intelligent Design. Prime Mover. Creator. Designer. Scientists just couldn't bring themselves to say "God." We are discussing Intelligent Design. Since I'm a Creationist and therefore a supporter of Intelligent Design....I have to present my arguments/defense of ID with supporting sources to my claim. After all that's part of a good debate....substantiating one's statement. Personal opinion are hardly worth anything. I'm just stating a fact with Bloodyminded. If one truly wants to know, you've got to be prepared to think and step outside the box if you have to....to get to the answer! Of course, given Anthony Flew's reputation and credentials....I'd take his word for it that he's found reasonable evidence that convinced him that ID is more credible than random chance!

We'll never agree with each other on that. As for the right of the parents...we'll just have to wait and see how the Supreme Court will decide on that.

Of course I assume the explanation in the article is not as detailed as when they'd convinced Flew. Anyway, it's not as simple as Cybercoma made it like with his "and it's designer must, therefoe, be designed...." These parts must've been overlooked: Well give it time! You guys had a century and still counting.... yet still couldn't explain about evolution and the universe. We all waited patiently with you...and still waiting.... (although I couldn't say about the patiently part). Why do you assume he made an error in shifting his belief? I don't think Flew would be satisfied by sheer logic alone when he was dealing with these scientists. I don't think Flew expected anything less than scientific proof or reasonable reasons to convince him when he knew the credentials and qualifications of these men. He obviously decided the evidence presented to him were reasonable enough compared to random chance. But obviously he felt the explanation satisfying enough compared to random chance! It's been explained in that article why it must be Intelligent Design. Now now now....look at your statement (boldened). This is what I meant when I spoke about the box. Remember? The question is: Do you really want to know? If yes, then be prepared to knock down walls or break a window to look out or take a step outside...even if this leads you to what you dread of finding.

name='BubberMiley' date='17 April 2011 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1303050633' post='656715'] But I'm not arguing about anything. I'm just enjoying the freak show, and watching the crippled christian try and get back on track. I didn't mean you. I was explaining to you. But since you say you're not arguing about anything and just enjoying the show....then I won't disrupt your enjoyment by replying to you. At least you're having fun. That's good.

I like some of the socialist aspect in our society right now. What I'm worried about is the chipping away of our rights. As a multi-cultural society, I think we're really doing great compared to some multi-cultural societies in Europe. So along the premise of getting along with one another, it seems we don't have that problem. We understand and respect one another's differences in culture and belief. If our schools will start rolling out mandatory religion classes, then it should be done later when children are older. It is hard enough for parents to impart their values to their children (what with all they see on tv and the movies)....without the school competing for airtime. The right issue is my problem here. Right of the parents.

You don't make any sense. Anyway, correction: don't do your senseless anti-your-kind-of-religion rant in Federal Politics. Whoa. That's news to me indeed. I didn't know being a liberal requires forgiveness. Anyway....whatever, WIP.

Must be imitating Howard Dean or Tom Cruise. I must say, the applause of his audience didn't match the passion of his "rise up! rise up!" If his own audience didn't rev up....then it most probably was ineffective.

Well, I thought you've got to know something about what you're arguing about. That's only sensible....unless of course you intend to make up facts or invent your way through the whole discussion. Er....fill-in-the-gaps method, so they say. Dawkins was slammed for not understanding Christianity or other religions well enough! Actually I don't follow the debates. I got hooked on a few only after Dre gave the link to Dawkins vs Wright from the other thread. You could say Dre got me into it! The rest of videos and other stuffs I'm giving out now are just products of various articles I've been stumbling on after reading the original article on "The Church of the Non-believers." The bigotry of Dawkins and the founding of his New Atheism is what got me quite interested in him. Since I've never really bothered with popular science books, I never imagined he was like this! It's like opening Pandora's box for me. If this focus is called obsession....then I must be obsessed. I myself thought that it's uselessly juvenile to reason with emotions alone in mature discussions. That personal opinions don't carry too much weight in topics such as this since most of them are inaccurate ramblings and distorted versions of what they don't actually know. I thought it's only sensible and credible argument and rebuttal to support what I claim, foolish me.

“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Excerpt from... http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel6.htm There is a battle being waged in Quebec. Parents against mandatory attendance to "Religion Course." It has reached the Supreme Court. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18606&pid=656677&st=0entry656677 Do you agree with the article? Do you see the similarities? Do you agree that religion courses - teaching/understanding of the numerous religions - be mandatory? Hopefully we can set aside our leanings to discuss this objectively.

I oppose the fact that it's mandatory. Religion involves learning of moral values. Studying numerous religions can cause confusion in a child's mind, and it will undermine the values being taught by parents at home. This is taking away the right of the parents. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/05/11/quebec-ethics-course-0511.html

That is what secularists are saying. Although it is science explaining that everything was created (implying the existence of a Creator or God/a god), Intelligent Design is not a religion. Although Intelligent Design does seem to support the creation-beliefs of various religions (Judeo-Christian, Islam etc.,), it is not a religion.

deleted. moved.

With my tinfoil hat on, I'd say you never know how low the Opposition can sink when they're desperate. Or what their desperate supporters would do when they feel desperate measures are in order. Over-zealous staff did what they thought was protecting their leader's effort to bring out his message. Although I must say it did more harm than good. Tension is way up there. Stressful times.

Please WIP, don't start your senseless anti-religion rant on Federal Politics. Moral relativist? Will you please analyse what I've posted about Bruce Carson. Am I not endorsing FORGIVENESS? After all the man had already paid for his past crimes. Am I not endorsing COMPASSION? After all his last sentence indicated that he has some mental/psychological issues. A man his age going out with a 22 year-old....something is going on inside that man. What's wrong about what I said as to politics attracting corrupt people? That's stating a fact! Just like daycares and orphanages attract pedophiles....schools and churches attract perverts!

A while back he was groovin to Caribeanna. He's up there yesterday dancing the Pow-Wow move with his wife. (Hmmm....come to think of it, Harper has not brought out his wife yet (she's just there quietly in the background)...maybe a duet is in order?) Last night Iggy playfully threw snowballs at the press. Really buttering up the press?Maybe the snowball move will do the trick for Iggy?

Bob Fife from CTV said not to make too much of the coming of the Big Guns (Chretien and Martin)...that it's normal for them to want to support their party. He gave the campaign of Dion as an example. Hello? They were desperate then too.

So you're saying Christ was imitating Jim Jones or Koresh? Not the other way around? Your logic goes that just because Jim Jones and Koresh were literally exploiting the passage from the Bible to suit their agenda of isolating their members from families....your conclusion is that therefore....Christ was a cult leader! Isn't your logic similar to this: The cat meows. The parrot heard the cat and mimics its meows. Therefore the cat is a parrot!