Iota

Now to prepare for the next questions, 'why did you lie to me?' and, 'why would my goldfish want to watch over me?' (It probably only irritates him to see another fish eating his food...)

haha best of luck with that!

I think the only reason they ask if it's 'in heaven or not' is because obviously somewhere along the line the idea of heaven has been put in their head. When kids ask things like 'is it in heaven now?' what they're really wondering is: 'what is death' or 'why did it have to die?'

Personally I think kids forget quick enough about dead hamsters and dead goldfish, so telling them something along the lines of 'it was just its time to go' is better. I don't think that would traumatise them lol. Instead of giving them a comforting idea, substitute that with actually comforting them directly; by answering any questions they have as best as you can, talk to them to make sure they're alright every now and then, and keep it off their mind by keeping them distracted with other stuff.

I can sympathise with the use of a comforting idea, when, say, a close family member dies, and I understand the psychological and emotional comfort part. But I think the whole 'comforting idea' route is usually a way of avoiding answering difficult questions, and brushing it under the rug. Personally, I'd deem that potentially harmful, confusing, and in general a worse method than just talking with them and answering their questions as honestly and gently as possible.

If they believe in heaven they probably believe in hell too, another thing to consider.

 

 

By supporting religiosity in children, will the result be a generation of adults who are not prepared to question the nature of morality independently, but who accept moral atrocities including war, homophobia, sexism, child abuse and the sidelining of reasoned argument in favour of the religious 'ideal'?

No I don't think just the idea of heaven will result in them growing up to be intolerant bigoted religionists. But it could make them more prone to believing superstitious nonsense once they grow up. I believe that to be the case for one main reason: They would never have learnt to accept or deal with difficult circumstances such as death, earlier in life, so they will more likely turn to superstition for comfort when they're older. Most people subscribe to religion for comfort.

Now we just have to get over the bigotry against facebook and its very 'active' userbase. Can't we just accept people the way they are, including their propensity to 'like' every single thing and to post about the most mundane crap?

 

You people make me sick.

For a moment there I thought you wasn't being sarcastic.

 

 

My religion? I haven't disclosed my private beliefs.

So you're not religious?

You need to look up what a buffer is.

 

 

And how can I calculate the pH of this solution

'Henderson-Hasslebach' google it.

You're taller when you laying down, when you're stood up you shrink a bit. The trick is to always lay down.

 

Every few years we kill off everyone over 5'11". Saves trimming trees over the sidewalks.

Sounds economical.

There is a theory by linguists that all languages came from one original language.

So what?

 

 

Regardless of whether a deity is real or not, in fact lets just suppose it's not real, it's just an imaginary idea, the same as your dragon, are the two ideas really categorically equivalent? The deity idea, perhaps as a potential explanation as to why things exist at all, or as a potential source of objective morality has a bit more coherence than your dragon doesn't it, even if it's completely false?

The only difference between your religion and iNow's corn dog (hot dog?) pooping dragon, is that your religion comes complete with a book of mythology. If iNow agrees to write a book on it, will you be willing to worship it? I'm willing to vouch for the existence of this dragon (which is basically proof, right?), and I know others have seen it too. It came to me in a vision, bringing me laws on morality and explained to me how the universe came to be.

Be warned though. If you don't worship it you can't come to hot dog heaven, instead you'll go to hell and your ever-regenerating flesh will be mutilated and cooked to make hot dogs for everyone in heaven, because you did not believe. REPENT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!

Well, the EU is clearly necessary for us European nation states to compete on the global economic stage, which is probably why USA is so insistent that the UK doesn't leave it. Asia is catching up technologically with the West and exceeds massively on production and export. China is just starting to see its people demand a higher standard of living, to reap the rewards of their country's fruitful economy; a trend which will grow quickly in the near future. Will this mean some production coming back to the West? Most likely not, seeing as China is investing so heavily in Africa, somewhere abroad where they can move their industries for dirt cheap production... Africa benefits, China benefits, it's a win win situation, if you ignore the exploitation. India and USA have followed suit and have started investing in Africa too. Maybe EU and USA together will continue to be competitive; as well combined with allies from USA's quasi-empire (South Korea, Japan etc.)... not to mention Australasia.

I don't like the EU, I think it's a movement whose aim is become a world superpower through undemocratic and wreckless means. It's harmful for the UK already, and we're being bullied into joining completely. There are definitely benefits, but they come at great costs IMO. But you can't get away from the fact we need it.

 

Actually, the tactic used in the ensuing drama after the paper was published was to simply make the baseless claim that Prof. Lenski and his co-authors made up the data.

Of course.

I meant the argument to do with evolution in general, rather than the Lenski experiment specifically.

Are covalent bonds usually weak?

Also, Nitrogen is a diatomic molecule; how many bonds does each nitrogen atom have in a nitrogen molecule?

 

Like the Lenski experiment?

That's why you're the biology expert! Very interesting.

Still, it seems the only evidence these religionists who reject evolution will accept is seeing a 'monkey' transform into a homosapien, right before their very eyes. And repeatedly they come out with the argument that if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today? As if that means anything at all.

I think it's clever how E. Coli can be manipulated in such a way that to produce pure diesel, purely through metabolism. Saw something on that last night think I'll read up on it now, as it's come up.

6'0"

What's this survey for?

 

So there's enough "observed" evidence to support the tower of Babel being able to control the weather, but not for the theory of evolution?

Exactly, why don't you demand the same standard of evidence for the claims made in this book of yours, as you do for scientific theories such as evolution?

As for 'observed evidence', there is tonnes of observed evidence in fossils and genetics. You just can't be bothered to look, you'd rather assume there is no evidence, when actually there clearly is. What you're asking for is to see evolution occurring in real time right before your very eyes. Yet I assume you accept the fact that the Earth orbits around the Sun, and not the other way round?

A broken heart is always at War.

Your profile: 'Interests: The Truth'

That's a lie.

You're on the right path,just connect the dots.

 

 

 

...Scientist used to glorify God.

That's right, connect the dots in whatever way pleases your definition of evidence. Solidify the falsity of your beliefs and delusions, that way they become more true and you can cast out your previous doubts regardless of rationality, and rest your mind at ease from anything contrary.

We go only by Scientific Evidence in these lands. BE GONE!

Welcome to the forums!

Leo is a lion at the zoo.

 

Leo goes ger (sounds like GRRRR as in growl)

 

loss of electrons is oxidation gain of electrons is reduction

 

L E O G E R

Also, OIL RIG.

Oxidation Is Loss, Reduction Is Gain (of electrons)

I also find when trying to remember several big numbers, e.g. 1254, 1435, 8345.

Just reading them as twelve fifty-four, fourteen thirty-five and eighty-three forty-five

is a lot easier than,

one thousand two hundred and fifty-four etc.

They discuss this matter at the beginning of this video, if you're interested.

 

 

Only that it is a source which could not have conformed with our understanding of math and physics

does not mean

 

 

the big bang is a nearly identical idea of a miraculous universal creation event

what it does mean is you can't use intuitive thought to solve theories like the Big Bang. For example:

 

 

... Also, if a single explosion sent all matter into motion, the conservation of angular momentum would cause all matter to rotate in the same direction.

 

....look at our own solar system for a minute or two and you'll see why a single explosion seems unlikely.

It certainly takes some arrogance to honestly think that you've spotted something that leading physicists have missed, purely by means of your own intuition. If it were that simple we wouldn't need physics, or physicists for that matter.

Look at the mod's note; if you want to talk to me about contradictions, here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78451-hijack-endless-rehash-of-contradictory-bits-of-the-bible/page-2 would be the place to do it. Although I've resigned from discussing that, anyway.

I'll make a few points, but I rest my case after this:

 

 

If you're going to quote me, please use the full quote and don't take things out of context.

Yes I didn't quote all of what you said each time, because they're very big text, but I took the most relevant part and answered within the context.

 

 

I never said to remove it entirely. I just said to keep them separate.

You said this in response to me quoting the OT. Almost as if to say, whatever I quoted was irrelevant, because there's also a NT, which is an irrelevant point which avoided the parts I quoted.

 

 

I also love how you are singling out Christianity as the only religion that has members who are schizophrenic.

I'm singling out Christianity, because I'm discussing with you, and you brought up your Christian value beliefs.

 

 

To say something like that, implies that all those who have religious/spiritual beliefs are borderline schizophrenic. And that is an OUTRAGEOUS assumption.

I don't think so. And I also mentioned the varying degrees of severity of the mental illness. It's very clear that Christian religious beliefs, match the definition of being delusional and hallucinating, in the context of how a lot of Christians do practice. That's an observation.

 

 

Please point out to me, verbatim, how my beliefs contradict each other.

Like I said, you haven't properly defined your beliefs, so how can I?

 

 

And the order of events was implied from the order it was stated in.

I can assure you there was nothing implied.

 

For the first point, Keep the Old and New Testaments separate.

Nope, it's all the word of God, stand by it or you don't stand for Christianity. How dare thee take from or add to the word of the LORD.

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it”(also Deuteronomy 12:32)

Revelation 22:18-19 says, "For I testify unto everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 

 

The Old God was vengeful, the slightest thing against the rules was punishable, much in the same way as the old gods of the Roman Pantheon. However, during the New Testament, God's attitude changed and He was seen as a more loving and just God, not at all like the Old.

I like how the law of God changes depending on his mood swings when he's writing each book. I also like how Christians try to dismiss all of the things they used to teach for many generations.

 

 

Was this because, according to Scripture, his son had been born? Who knows.

No it's because it was clearly written by mere people, certainly not by an infallible deity.

 

 

Please do not assume that anyone with schizophrenia believes themselves to speak with a deity. Schizophrenia is...

According to the NHS page on Schizophrenia, two out of four of the primary symptoms of having the disorder are "hallucinations- hearing or seeing things that do not exist", "delusions- unusual beliefs not based on reality which often contradict evidence".

the prior symptom is very reminiscent of many Christians, some who express it to worse degrees than others. Some just by praying, believing they're talking to someone, who frankly, isn't there. Whereas others who believe they speak in tounges, or who out-loud speak to God, and think they can hear God speaking to them (e.g. those who wrote the Bible.)

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Schizophrenia/Pages/Introduction.aspx

2:21 of this video shows the more severe case. Brought on because a woman preacher with clear mental illness is being allowed to teach fear into children and teach the same bat s*** beliefs she has. And before you say it, not all Christians behave like this, I know, but read what I said above, and you should see it's relevant to 99% of practising Christians, and the majority of religionists in general.

Just to summarise plainly:

hallucinations- hearing or seeing things that do not exist (God)

delusions- unusual beliefs not based on reality which often contradict evidence (Christianity 100%)

Sure it's not Schizophrenia per se, but it's so close that anyone who meets this criteria should be very worried about their mental health.

Finally- Schizophrenia has unknown causes, but it's suspected to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

 

 

And I clearly never said that I follow Christianity. I merely said that I follow Christian values...

I recall, yet I don't recall you justifying your reason for following Christian values, in fact, your reasoning contradicts you following Christian values, and makes very little sense in general.

 

 

Granted this is just a very brief look at my beliefs and doesn't include anywhere near everything.

This is a very nice defence to have, because you know your beliefs are impossible to attack when most of them remain undefined, it removes the need for a rational explanation for having said beliefs, whatever they might be, which I'm sure you don't even really know.

 

 

By this time, they would have been considered adults by the community after having their menstruation cycles and able to bare children.

Ages 12 and up, Oh, that's OK then. Thanks for settling that.

 

 

What's completely backwards is your order on the events.

If you look back I didn't give an order of events, I merely states that he ALSO gave up his daughters to be raped by an angry mob, and quite frankly, I don't see that the order in which these events happened, makes them any less sick.

 

 

Also, the daughters slept with him to keep their bloodline going.

Completely normal when you consider that! I should've noticed.

Make it easily differentiable for them- when you're debating someone- the difference between you attacking their beliefs, as opposed to you attacking them personally. If you've been careful to do this, and they still get offended, then there's not much more you can do really, and if they get offended, so be it. The truth is always more important.