betsy

Deflections on the "war" issue! You were talking about me....and I pointed back about you! So don't muddy the waters by roping in everyone! Yad-yada-yada about the medium/occult! Nevertheless, mediums are mentioned in the Bible. Christians are supposed to avoid those! I'm just stating the fact that they're mentioned in the Bible. Then you rant again....bringing in witch-burning! Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence my foot! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since there are no extraordinary evidence that things such as telekinesis are not possible (simply because we don't fully understand the capacity of the brain)....it is therefore irresponsible (to say the least) of Dawkins to dismiss it as not true! That's why he no longer have any credibility as a scientist! He's nothing more than an evangelist that he ridicules! He's just full of bull! Your rebutt still ain't much at all. Cut down on the rant so you won't lose focus!

Apparently you do. Cosmology/physics-wise, kindly explain where he was wrong?

Just something to think about. From Randy Rugles, author (Evolution: Fact or fiction)

ha-ha-ha

There you go again fitting everything....and everyone.... in one little box neatly tied with a bow. Not all creationists think that way.... This is one creationist who is open-minded enough to consider that there could be other life forms out there. The possibility exists since the universe is so vast. After all God need not explain his every move to his creation. The possibility that there is none however also exists...until we find one. So the quest for ET continues. I can imagine it now that if and when we do find other life forms out there, jaws will drop when evolutionist scientists discover that these life forms are also walking around reading their own Bible! If they are more advanced than us the tete-a-tete with humans will go like this: ET: The parting of the red sea! Cool man! That guy who played the role didn't look anything like the original though. Man: Whaaaat? ET: And the Resurrection? Oh yeah man, we saw it live! On our hi-def tv!

It is you who automatically thinks of violence. You think "war" is only waged through violence. What's with you members of the flock? Your emminence Dawkins and company refuse to think and look outside the box with anything about origin....remaining close-minded. You parrot the same. And now, see? It becomes a way of thinking it seems to you. To remain enclosed in a teeny-weeny box. YOu only think of war in a very narrow terms of violence! Why, should I only not agree with him when it's about God? Anyway, in the Bible it's been acknowledged that there are mediums or those who deal in the occult. Christians are supposed to stay away from those. There are quacks. And there are quacks. But who's to say there's not a real one? Besides we've not fully understood the capacity of the the human brain. To dismiss everything is irresponsible to say the least. Dawkins is blinded by his faith in no-God. He's so afraid to come face to face with the possibility of anything supernatural. He's crippled or paralyzed by this fear. He's no longer credible as a scientist. Mumbo-jumbo, Dawkins also has a knack for that. From scientist to quack (?). Either he's become a mad scientist....or it's just more lucrative to be an atheist! Whether he accurately identified Dawkin as a zoologist or not doesn't matter. You're grasping at anything it seems to muddy the waters. His point is still there! It's not much of a rebuttal to you perhaps. But that's not surprising you'd say that...since yours is not much of a rebuttal either. You've lost your whole argument with that term, "war." And Dre's just babbling and sputtering away. No actually these articles all stemmed from googling "New Atheism." Like I said that opened many doors for me.

Iggy is a politician. He actually proudly admits to that. And he is. He lies. A lot. He flip-flops. A lot. He cannot connect to the regular Joe on the street. Harper is a politician. But he's delivered most of what he promised, although they may not be to everybody's liking. And best of all, he's been tried and tested by the recent economic disaster. To boot, you want leadership....what more kind of leadership you want when we all saw what happened (and what is currently happening) to other countries' economy? Yet we remain strong. An inspiration to all nations. All Opposition parties may poke and try to burst our bubble of pride....but then we all expect that from parties who never thought they'd see Harper score big points on the economy. Anyway, they must be green....and I'm not talking about Elizabeth May. Who needs the Security Council for posturing recognition! This is much, much better! We've got a global voice. And true, Harper is an economist....a whole lot better qualified than Ignatieff...most especially in this time of uncertainty. With him and Flaherty, we can sail this through with much hope for complete recovery, and hopefully more.

ha-ha-ha For a while I thought you've got something up your sleeves. And I was about ready to ask you to spit it out.... ha ha ha

Coalition will mean all three parties get what they want. The Liberals' universal daycare, healthcare, seniors' pension, Post-secondary education, gun registry...to name a few The NDPs' universal daycare, healthcare, seniors' poverty, corporate tax cut (which will mean more lay-offs and businesses moving elsewhere), credit card knee-capping (which will mean more lay-offs) EI, environment, gun registry....to name a few. The Blocs' more money for Quebec, more money for Quebec, more money for Quebec....to name a few. If I groaned at the announcement of Ignatieff's daycare....my blood pressure hit sky-high when Scribblet posted this! Who's gonna shoulder all these spendings???

<groan> taxes....taxes....more taxes....

Excerpts from the article. A very long read. Hart tackled Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and more.... http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not

Simply because of faith, my friend. I believe. No need for proof. Is all. Those who read and understand what they read will know that there is no wide-brush stroke.

Come to think of it, an anchorperson from the CBC said that answering "I don't know" to all questions gets you labelled under Liberal.

Apparently... Clearly that 1% makes quite a big difference. Then Dawkin says... He should've been Agnostic. The probability is still there. And yet he is "confident" that God does not exists. I guess it's more lucrative to be an atheist!

Anti-all religion my foot! Notice that all these gross insults were done on Christian God. Did anyone say boo against Mohammed or the Quran? It's just plain and simple anti-Christian faith! Surely Dawkins and cohorts show they are not afraid of offending Christians knowing that forgiveness, and turning-the-other-cheek is at the core of the doctrine. So never mind this posturing of having bodyguards just because they get hate-mails wishing them to burn in hell! You see, for some reason these folks and their flocks are afraid of Christianity. Otherwise why would you waste your one chance at life devoted to so much bitterness and angst. Furthermore, EHHH? Is he stupid? Or he thinks atheists are all morons? Or both? Oh we know why Dawkins and cohorts are doing this. Because of the kaching and the bling! I'm beginning to suspect that the flocks are being taken for a ride by these evangelistic quartet....to the tune of book sales, speaking engagements and what other lucrative deals may be had. Ohhhh such cruel irony....talk about blind faith. Sad....sad...sad.

Were they right? I heard that some folks got labelled to other parties....one was even labelled with the Parti Quebecois!

I'm still reeling from that article to tell you the truth, because it put into clear words what I was trying to say in previous posts. Who would've thought that these 3 would come out as they did in this interview. The other two are Hitchens and Stenger. This actually opened a new door for me. Fair enough that this sect formed the breakaway and are no longer credible as scientists. My statement was unfair to other scientists - most of whom do not hold the kind of popularity that these 5 founders enjoy - whose focus remain fixed in "wanting to know," and are not afraid to go beyond the limit in their quest.

Since the title of this topic is The Nature of Evil, and the arguments that ensued regarding abortion - all stages of pregnancy and now with the new proposal of extending that "right to murder" 28 days after birth - which is being valiantly defended by its advocates, it is only fitting to give this excerpt from Berit Kjos: The nature and tactics of Satan http://www.crossroad.to/charts/sin&satan-txt.html

http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/10_4_PDFs/05_Robb.pdf

Anyone tried the vote compass launched by CBC? Complicated? How accurate? Please give feedback about it.

Going back to Singer, who sounds so coldly detached.....this again compares to the evil of Hitler's scientists/medical researchers who coldly performed experiments on the Jews and other humans they've defined as inhuman or sub-human.

Jack, Dre, Oleg.....my bad. I shouldn't have brought that moral issue here. It deserves a thread of its own. Will create one when I get around to it.

He's got his minions doing his dirty works for him. Including some in the science field.

Since they've actually waged war, I like to know these men. It's only sensible to know the enemy. I assume Dawkins is much more high-profiled - being the atheist poster boy - compared to the other 4 (two of whom where not included in the interview) who started the movement. Dawkins was easy to "read" from just watching that debate with Wendy Wright. I think he'd make an interesting subject for psychologists. Anyway... Lawyer rebutts Dawkins http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html

Within the context of my post, what's your point?