Reply to: So what happens now?

[John Galt]

No true believers cannot do basically what they like. Jesus says repent and obey him by obeying God's commandments. As for the buddhists, atheists, etc etc Jesus says he is The Way, The Truth and The Life - period.

So then Chico, how do you explain away religious wars? Probably the most important commandment is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - now should that be followed with 'unless it is in the name of religion'? And what happens to the soldiers who knowingly takes lives in the name of religion - are they forgiven as they are 'true believers' or does the commandment take precedence?
Please do not quote the bible at me or cut and paste - I would genuinely be interested in your opinion.

[Chico]

You're right. Case closed. I'll let the members of the jury decide who was right, eh?

The self styled atheist logic at work. Classic.

[sasguru]

What have you lost all sense of reason? Playback you claimed that there were no modern scientists who were believers. I have just proved you wrong. Case closed.

You're right. Case closed. I'll let the members of the jury decide who was right, eh?

[EternalOptimist]

What have you lost all sense of reason? Playback you claimed that there were no modern scientists who were believers. I have just proved you wrong. Case closed.

Chico,
you have no moral authority here
you have no ethical authority here
you have no wisdom above most of the people here
you have no more knowledge than the people here
you are bloodthirsty
you are nasty

Please leave and dont come back
I cast you out.

[Chico]

You have now broken a commandment. Deliberately misleading is equivalent to lying, in most people's book.

Let's summarise the facts, a process you are unused to following:

(1) You provided a list which consisted of random doctorate holders who professed to be Christians.
(2) I provided you with a meta-analysis of research that came to the conclusion that 90% of EMINENT scientists have no religious beliefs.

So there we have it. The "Christian" way of falsifying the truth.

What have you lost all sense of reason? Playback you claimed that there were no modern scientists who were believers. I have just proved you wrong. Case closed.

[vista]

WE need a cull

The pope's apologised, we have sharia banks and special gowns for muslim women in hospital so what next? I saw a programme not so long ago in which a prominent muslim cleric stated quite baldly that the grand plan was to convert the UK to Islam. The claim seemed preposterous at the time but now I am not so sure.......what, if anything, can we do about this apparant dominance?

If they do manage to blow up the pope - then there'll be hell to pay.

[Jabberwocky]

Sorry about that claim chico, it was a quote taken out of context. Please don't go and shoot anyone now. Unless you want to shoot yourself with a rusty twelve bore. No offence intended.

Thanks, Jabs

[sasguru]

Seems you have missed the point, you claimed that there were no first rate modern scientists who were Bible believers. I do not need a list telling me there are atheist scientists, thats no news.

You have now broken a commandment. Deliberately misleading is equivalent to lying, in most people's book.

Let's summarise the facts, a process you are unused to following:

(1) You provided a list which consisted of random doctorate holders who professed to be Christians.
(2) I provided you with a meta-analysis of research that came to the conclusion that 90% of EMINENT scientists have no religious beliefs.

So there we have it. The "Christian" way of falsifying the truth.

[Chico]

Seems you have missed the point, you claimed that there were no first rate modern scientists who were Bible believers. I do not need a list telling me there are atheist scientists, thats no news.

[EternalOptimist]

As the link makes clear, the only criteria for inclusion in that list is possession of a doctorate. So that list is not composed of scientists of the first rank.
Here are more relevant details:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm

Cheeky Chico's claims that something can be refuted easily really mean that someone else claims that they can refute. He never gets into the argument in any detail and he whines if antone else uses the same tactics.
I dont hate Chico for his religious beliefs, because I am not sure about the truth of much myself, I hate him for his hypocrisy and the bloodthirsty route he has chosen to follow.

I am sure Jesus would turn aside from this nasty person.

[sasguru]

More evidence, summarises almost all research conducted on this issue:

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Inte...20religion.htm

[sasguru]

Easily refuted. Link here

As the link makes clear, the only criteria for inclusion in that list is possession of a doctorate. So that list is not composed of scientists of the first rank.
Here are more relevant details:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm

[EternalOptimist]

Well since buddism (which originated from hinduism) is probably one of the oldest religions around surely they are more likely to be right than the christians.

I mean all that enlightenment has probably given then some insight....

there are only four things wrong with your argument

probably
surely
likely
probably




If it had anything to do with age then we would all be worshipping Oak trees.

[Ardesco]

Well since buddism (which originated from hinduism) is probably one of the oldest religions around surely they are more likely to be right than the christians.

I mean all that enlightenment has probably given then some insight....

[Chico]

They were creatures of their time. You will find it hard to name any current EMINENT scientists who are believers. And Chico, don't trot out your third rate loser names, please.

Easily refuted. Link here