|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2006 08:21:35 PM · #226 |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 09:43:16 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Why do we even bother... |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With this statement my respect for you has been quadrupled. This is perhaps your most adroit statement. lol |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:20:12 AM · #228 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie. |
Downloaded it and works perfectly. Nice looking picture, too. Thanks for the help. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:53:15 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie. |
Downloaded it and works perfectly. Nice looking picture, too. Thanks for the help. |
No problem, I hope others will download and watch it too. Seems silly afterall commenting on a documentary one hasnt seen.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 12:55:49. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 01:36:19 PM · #230 |
As long as theSaj does not start on the subject of copyright...
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
You will also need to download and install this Codec Pack to make sure you have whats required to play the movie. |
Downloaded it and works perfectly. Nice looking picture, too. Thanks for the help. |
No problem, I hope others will download and watch it too. Seems silly afterall commenting on a documentary one hasnt seen. |
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:02:47 AM · #231 |
I just finished listening to a podcast from Point of Inquiry featuring an interview with Professor Dawkins and I thought this quote was interesting concerning the choosing of the title for his show and the show itself. (Around minute 18)
Originally posted by Richard Dawkins:
First of all, I should say, that the title âRoot of All Evilâ was not mine and I actually fought vigorously against it ⦠against the television company and they insisted on it. I managed to get them to insert a question mark at the end which was the sole concession to my misgivings about this ⦠what I regarded, and still do regard, as an indefensible title. Religion is certainly not the root of all evil. No single thing is the root of all anything. But I do think that you can make a case that religion is the root of a great deal of evil ⦠certainly throughout history ⦠and certainly today. If you look at the causes of wars and similar conflicts you can say that, in many cases, they are due to, for example, economic disputes or national vendettas or something of that sort ⦠and that is true. But, for a start, it is very often the case that the only label that people manage to find to tie onto themselves and to their enemies are religious labels. |
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:08:53 AM · #232 |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 10:27:41 AM · #233 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Richard Dawkins:
If you look at the causes of wars and similar conflicts you can say that, in many cases, they are due to, for example, economic disputes or national vendettas or something of that sort ⦠and that is true. But, for a start, it is very often the case that the only label that people manage to find to tie onto themselves and to their enemies are religious labels. |
|
We frequently used to ask ourselves what the differences really were between us and the Soviets. Even then I was aware, as was Goldwater, that the differences were marginal, so we wanted to spell them out. But the more we discussed it, the harder it became. I mean, they have a secret police, we have a secret police. They can vote for only one candidate, here we have two -- which makes us twice as good but not absolutely better, especially since our candidates are selected in such a peculiar fashion. We kept pressing each other for differences and when we got right down to it, for Goldwater, the difference was religion: "We are the children of light and they are the children of darkness."
--Karl Hess (1976 interview) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 12:30:38 PM · #234 |
From the LATimes Their Own Version of a Big Bang.
Originally posted by latimes:
WAYNE, N.J. â Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies.
"Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"
The children roared their assent.
"Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.
"Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked.
"God!" the boys and girls shouted.
"Who's the only one who knows everything?"
"God!"
"So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?"
The children answered with a thundering: "God!"
A former high-school biology teacher, Ham travels the nation training children as young as 5 to challenge science orthodoxy. He doesn't engage in the political and legal fights that have erupted over the teaching of evolution. His strategy is more subtle: He aims to give people who trust the biblical account of creation the confidence to defend their views â aggressively. |
One has to wonder what good that does. The bad is cleary evident.
U.S. may lose its global lead in science
Originally posted by physorg.com:
The Washington-based National Academies, the nation's leading science advisory group, is warning the United States may lose its global lead in science.
The 20-member panel, in a report released Wednesday, cited examples of emerging scientific and industrial power abroad and listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global leadership in science.
"Decisive action is needed now," the report warned, explaining the nation's old advantages "are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength." |
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:54:19 AM · #235 |
Uh-oh, I'm raising a thread from the dead.
-I just wanted to say that I have no belief system and do not think you need one to be a functioning person. If you say "you have to have one!!" then I suppose I could say, "My belief system is that I have no belief system". I think. I think rather than believe because I don't think it's logical to divulge one's full trust into any one thing.
-I was not raised under religion as a child, but there were occasions where I would find myself in church (grandmother visits, easter, christmas, baptisms, etc.) and when I was about 7, I remember looking around and wondering, "why do people believe in this?"
-You could say that I'm an athiest, but that wouldn't be accurate. I prefer the term agnostic because, like I said, I don't believe that there is a god a.k.a higher power, but I am not completely dissmissing it either. I consider myself to be a logical person, so I will neither confirm nor deny the extreme presence or lack of something. Here is what I think:
-The Bible is a book. Just a well written book, written by very persuasive authors.
-I think Jesus was a probably a real person, but I think he was just a man who claimed he was the son of God.
-From dictionary.com, Faith: belief that is not based on proof. In every sermon I've heard, or book of the bible I have read, there is always the word faith. Why should I be persuaded into believing something that makes no sense?
-I feel that proof is esential to me and others to even begin to think something is indeed true. Call me untrustworthy, but if somebody you knew very well said that you were a piece of ravioli, would you instantly believe them, or first listen and be on guard? Give me proof.
-I think most people use religion because they were raised at a very young age to believe such things, or were born-agains (like my aunt). For those who were raised to believe it, I think they were too young to really know any better at 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, etc. But why is it that more and more of these kids as teenagers and adults lose their religious tendencies? Is it just for when their older and they make a mistake or feel weak, they can can pull god out of their pocket because the idea gave them feelings of nostalgia and comfort from when they were young? This is when most born-agains seem to 'find' Jesus or god again, or maybe for the first time. They are vulnerable and often feel alone, and think the only way they can solve their problems is to give themselves to thir religion. I have been thru many hardships, and can honestly say, that I have never once thought of turning to religion. I (along with many others) have a strong conscious all by myself.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:30 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:30 PM EDT.
|
