0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
uhhh... yeah... you really got Carl on the ropes, cause he don't know what Cosmos is... hur dur. Prove any part of those walls of text you churned out, that I didn't read.No. It's not up to me to disprove your extraordinary claims.The onus is always on the person who is making the claim to prove said claim.Otherwise you are simply spinning a... Reassuring Fable.
I'm not sure what George Norry's handle is on Bellgab these days but he should weigh in here on this thread. He is so uneducated and flexible with regard to religion and philosophy. It is comical how he will pander to guests and callers and claim very religious beliefs based on the guest/caller and his religious knowledge, even of things he claims to believe at that time, is remarkable- and often hilarious.
if he knew he would not made this so very common mistake -don't you think so ??I always lough at people who claim that they didn't read someone's "wall of text" -yet they respond to a very particular point made in that "wall of text"/quite funny actually/ I'm not asking anybody to disprove my extraordinary claims,..I'm asking evolutionist to prove their lunacy...hello'www ??
hahaha, George claims to be spiritual but no religious...
Yes, the cop-out solution.
Heaven sends me here to youAnd if a-you fear you've reason toOpen up all seven sealsThe beast is come to claim the youthCasted down my brethrenRebels from authorityPower, pride, contempt and lustAll these things I give to youI am not your son of GodThe prince of light will show no fearMine is that which rules this worldThe beast is come, I am the end
Intangible ideas like these are the single greatest force that shapes civilization, and it takes a bolder man than I to write them off just because this generation of grubby fact-finders can't get a grip on their antecedents.
*** "How the chemical elements that are part of all what you see around you, including your own body, -how those elements come into existence?
The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.It sounds like you had no trouble getting a grip on your antecedents with that post - the whole thing reeked of self-regard. And hand cream. I know Tocqueville found religion useful as a way of countering your nation's beastly tendency to ignore everyone else for their own swinish purposes, or that some of the greatest music and architecture came about because they happened to believe in sky fairies, but that doesn't make it true. All I am interested in is whether the belief in god happens to be correct or not, the rest is a side-issue. People can believe what they like, even the Leprechaun Fallacy (as I shall hereinafter call it) where Art's 'stalker' is concerned. Perhaps, if Bach were alive today, he could be working on the St. Heather Passion, but I rather doubt it.Intangible ideas like religion might help to shape civilisation, but they also do much to destroy them, as happened with Islam stifling scientific enquiry after doing so much to preserve the work of Aristotle.
Hahaha the chance to cast you you as an uncouth peasant for once was irresistible.
Yeah? He's our uncouth peasant. But his observations are sound. Religion the opium of the masses; the modern versions simply an instrument to keep the proles in check; threatening them with eternal damnation if they step out of line. Wonderfully effective.
You guys know that's basically a conspiracy theory, right?
The Church Militant has always been more important than the Church Triumphant. In some ways it was useful because it broke up the monopoly of the aristocracy and promoted clever but poor boys into positions of power, but otherwise it's always been there to keep the masses in check with threats of eternal damnation.
Funny to hear that coming from an Englishman. I would think you guys would have more appreciation for religion as a revolutionary force than we do.
Appreciation or acknowlegement? Britain has had more than its fair share (distant and not so distant past) of conflict due to religious bigotry.
I'm talking about established religion not the kind of Reformation stuff that Cromwell was about. Once Luther started the ball rolling all bets were off.
To say religion exists primarily to "keep the masses in check" ignores its role in revolutionary movements of the past, particularly your own.
It must be wonderful to live in a place where the Middle Ages seem like yesterday.
It didn't really work, though; once Cromwell died it fell apart. The real revolution occurred in 1688, which was a peaceful transference of power known as the Glorious Revolution.
...which was also motivated primarily by religious concerns.
Author
RELIGION Thread (Read 39220 times)
