No, the Big Bang Theory is on CBS on Monday nights. Get it right. And stars this woman: So, there you go.
Looks like bait required to attract those who would otherwise watch "the biggest loser" instead of indulging any science talk.
I'm looking forward to seeing Bill's movie. Some of us look in awe at the elegance and majesty of this existence and we sense a consciousness or intelligence behind it. Some don't, and some feel it vaguely (theists/atheists/agnostics?) But why do people feel the need to declare these senses or experiences as objective truth? To then say that those who feel otherwise are wrong? "I'm feeling happy today. Therefore the world is objectively a happy place. If you're not happy, you're wrong." Or even worse: Why do people take the words of others who have experienced this (Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed...) and declare them to be absolute truth? I'm guessing that this is what the movie addresses. Like I said, I'm looking forward to seeing it.
The girl in the picture above is totally hot. So I googled the show and found clips of it on the network's web site. I watched two clips. Both totally mindless, with laugh tracks following such great comedic lines as "Hello." Once again, I'm glad I don't have TV.
As a Christian I would have a hard time arguing with those who do not believe. I am a new Christian so I may not have all the answers to your statements. I do believe I do have to stand up for Christ and for all those on PC who haven't. I know most on PC will not because it is useless, and I will not either. Not all will believe and not all will be saved.
We as human beings can over analyze things and be "to smart" to see what is right in front of us... THE BIBLE STATES THE TRUTH... There will many false gods, and misrepresentations. Mockery is spoken about and addressed in the BIBLE. PLEASE ... find a true Christian Pastor in your area and bring your questions and concerns to him. There you can sort out all of your questions and have them addressed. YOUR ETERNAL FUTURE IS AT RISK. YOU can change that. FAITH is an inside job. No one can force it, or make you believe. LISTEN with your HEART and DISCERN. JESUS CHRIST "IS" OUR SAVIOUR....He is the ONLY "retirement plan" you can count on. The Bible is very specific about the demoralizaton of society. This movie is simply another "SIGN OF THE TIMES".
If you are a new Christian, then run away now while you have your brain still. Seriously, though, make sure you don't swallow the whole line. Christ is strong enough by himself. If you really believe in Christ being God, then no worries; God can take care of himself. And who is to say who will be saved? No greater Christian mind then Billy Graham has gone on record saying that he has no idea who God will save or not. So who are we to argue with God? Okay, this next one should be fun... Ah, a RE/MAX Realtor. The same company that is not selling my house since JULY of last year in South Florida. But that is not your fault... Which 'truth' would that be? The one where you must sacrifice your son, no, wait, that was stopped by an angel...hmm. What about the truth that when the bad men come to town, and want to have sex with you, then you better offer up your daughter? Is that the truth you mean? How about the truth that was in the Apocrypha? No, wait, those truths were taken out of the KJV of the Bible somewhere between 1611 and 1726, with no reason given...so they must not be the truth...what about the Gospel of Thomas? No, wait, that gospel was not allowed in the Bible, so that must not be the truth... The Bible states nothing, as it is a book written by man, and any book written by man is prone to mistakes. Again, the Bible is a book, a collection of smaller 'books' even. But here is the deal. Just becasue a book says something, doesn't make it true. Stephen King writes great books. But if he says that something is true in a book, unless it is true (as in non fiction), then it's proably not true. Even non fiction can be streached a bit. Yeah, right. Tell you what: Find an open minded preacher, and you might learn to think for yourself. The only thing most pastors want is your money, so they want you to join a church, and then give money to them, so they can continue to line their pockets. As I have been trained to be a pastor, and am a preacher, reformed, I can tell you that the ones that do it for free, they might have thier heart in the right place. But most pastors have an agenda, and that agenda is to get butts in the pews, so they can have money in the cofers. Plain. Simple. No denying it. Doubt it. Tell you what, friend, if you know the future, the why not help the world out, by telling the world what to do next. Gives us a path that will take us out of the current mess, with certainty, that has nothing to do with God or the End Times, and maybe then, someone will buy this. First thing I agree with. We can change things, but only if we want to. True that as well. So why try to force people to have faith? Why say that your future is at risk, when no one knows one way or the other? Faith is the belief in things unseen, and not touched. It's a bit like magic, only with less David Cooperfield. (burp) not right now. That Chinese food is killer! Not my 401k? Hmm. Christ was a great man, who said great things, and should be the model to live by. But the one thing he is not, is your saviour. That is up to debate, as no one, not one, has gone to heaven, or beyond deaths grasp, and come back to tell us. No human at least. So what if the Bunny is the great saviour, ans we jus don't know it? The Bunny is cute. Have you seen the movie? And frankly, no where in any of the hundreds of Bibles that I have personaly read, and own, does it mention Bills movie as a sign of the end times. Sorry, but it does not. Tell you what though: If the world ends on Monday, and it is proven that this movie was a sign of the End Times, then I will admit here that I was wrong.
"Scientific values have been in conflict with religion for thousands of years. So have the findings of science. Using the ancient Roman debate between science and religion as a starting point and model, Dr. Carrier will show how science has actually won the debate, in both facts and morals, then goes on to prove it shouldn't matter what the Bible says: if there is moral truth it should be evident and demonstrable from the natural facts of the universe and the human mind and body, without any appeal to god or religion. And once we know the truth, we don't need anything else." From: Richard Carrier Blogs: Appearing in Springfield (MSU) Just wake me up when any evidence for God comes up. Anything that would indicate that it is just not an idea or wishful thinking in religious people's head would do.
There's a beer volcano in heaven. There could not be a beer volcano in heaven if the FSM didn't exist. Therefore the FSM exists. QED. (But the FSM is not a moral lawgiver. The FSM is merely the creator of everything. For morals you still have to use common sense, just as if there was no supernatural creator.)
That is not a safe assumption to make and I do not see how rational thought could arrive at that conclusion. Freedom to believe what one wishes regarding religion is one of the bulwarks supporting this great country, the USA. Jesus used the 'eyes, ears' images in addition to numerous parables to convey a spiritual message. There are things that cannot be directly communicated with words or sounds. Some people 'get it' and others don't. Those who 'get it' are grateful for the freedom to practice and promote what they believe. They are hoping that militant atheists and others never threaten their ability to do so by outlawing their beliefs. We've seen how well that works out in brutal communist states. You are under no obligation to believe what I believe, and I will never wish to obligate you. I'm reminded of the introduction of the 'Magic Eye' images a while back. Today I believe they are called autostereograms. If one took the time to train one's eyes, an underlying three-dimension-like image became visible in what outwardly appeared to be nothing but random and flat, two dimensional surfaces. Some people 'got it' and others did not. Some took the time to train themselves; others did not. Links such as those provided by NC Prius might be considered 'training tools' to open the eyes (metaphorically speaking) of some who seek to gain a certain spiritual knowlege. For those who believe no such knowlege exists, they are free to do so. It is interesting, however, that practically every culture has developed a path to spiritual knowlege for those interested in doing so.
At last! Some real humor. And after the Big Bang, the possibility of life developing fully depends on whether you're 'pro-life' , 'pro-choice' or 'pro-chance'.
That's because all cultures are made up of humans that are apparently susceptible to believe in things that do not exist based on scant evidence. What is more telling is that no one has ever come up with any evidence that God exists, ever. The magic eye analogy breaks down when you consider you could look into the manufacturing process of the images and prove that an image was printed. If you could do the same with God you would have an argument.
If you have an argument with someone that cannot be proven by facts, there are three possibilities: 1. You are right. 2. The other guy is right. 3. You are both wrong.
Your quote espouses a thesis which historians of science reject. Then it goes on to make an unfounded conclusion. Conflict thesis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For a socio-historical theory with a similar name, see Conflict theory. Galileo before the Holy Office by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury, a 19th century depiction of science clashing with religion Conflict thesis is the theoretical premise of an intrinsic conflict between science and religion. The term was originally used in a historical context: its proponents claim the historical record is evidence of religion's perpetual opposition to science. Later uses of the term may refer to an epistemological rather than historical opposition between religion and science. Both popular and academic texts at times conflate these two uses of the phrase. The historical conflict thesis, also known as the warfare thesis, the warfare model or the Draper-White thesis, is an interpretive model of the relationship between religion and science according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to open hostility, usually as a result of religion's aggressive challenges against new scientific ideas. The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but most contemporary historians of science now reject it.[1][2][3] It remains a widely popular view in the general public.[4] “Despite the growing number of scholarly modifications and rejections of the conflict model from the 1950's...in the 1970's leading historians of the nineteenth century still felt required to attack it...Whatever the reason for the continued survival of the conflict thesis, two other books on the nineteenth century that were published in the 1970s hastened its final demise among historians of science...1974...Frank Turner...Between Science and Religion...Even more decisive was the penetrating critique "Historians and Historiography"...[by] James Moore...at the beginning of his Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979). [5]
Alric says, "...That's because all cultures are made up of humans that are apparently susceptible to believe in things that do not exist based on scant evidence..." Now, you're trying to change the subject to anthropogenic Global Warming. Not FAIR!
