Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:52:58 AM
@dang007: So, in your evidence for belief you must discount the bible as being an unreliable source. After all, how do you know what god expects of you today and what is only meant to be adhered to in the specific age it was written. Does that mean 'Thou shalt not kill` may be irrelevant now? For a supreme being who`s omnipotent, omnipresent and infallible, it`s a pretty poor guide for life that hasn`t been kept up to date for 1000 yrs.
Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:46:13 AM
dang007: 'I would extend by previous statement to other religions as well`. So your belief struture can accomodate Christianity where belief is in a single supreme being the creator of everything, shintoism where belief is in a number of deities two of whom created Paradise now called Japan and buddhism which completely denies a creator. And you cant see a contradiction?
Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:25:32 AM
"In the strict sense of how we normally define Science yes. But my whole point is that Science in NOT everything."
Science is not everything, it is however the best way we as humans have figured out what is actually true, instead of believing other peoples assertions. Science whittles away fiction from fact to get the answer. Religion just makes up answers that feel good at the time and the proof of this is all the different religious viewpoints just in Christianity, you say that this is god reveling himself differently to different people when the most likely answer is people just make it up as they go along.
Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:01:16 AM
>>>I was pointing out that your description of voodoo does appear to break one of the ten commandments yet you say it does not contradict your beliefs.<<
The ten commandments were given to a group of people that had just escaped slavery in a foreign land. It was what God expected of those people at that point in time. Careful, when you assume you know what someone believes you are usually wrong.