At the end of the day, nothing is going to change.
Let's hug each other
richard dawkins said this:.
"...well, i think it is fair to say that if you were to...".
you can read it in context somewhere else probably.
At the end of the day, nothing is going to change.
Let's hug each other
richard dawkins said this:.
"...well, i think it is fair to say that if you were to...".
you can read it in context somewhere else probably.
to indulge in their animal passions all night long.
That's what sets them apart from religious persons? Could you be more specific?
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
I guess they do have a testimony that they have no testimony....
Like all poor monotheists who have testimonies of only one God...
inspired by this comment (post 16581 from satanus), i dug out a quote from richard dawkins;.
i wonder whether, some 60 years after hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons.
or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.
I don't think it's ever acceptable to reduce humans to mere animals.
Maybe we'll have to raise animals to mere human standards.
"remember, always, young man, that science which has become a great power in the last century, has analyzed everything divine handed down to us in the holy books.
after this cruel analysis the learned of this world have nothing left of all that was sacred.
but they have only analyzed the parts and overlooked the whole, and indeed their blindness is marvelous.
What is the christian ideal and how did scientists try to destroy it?
i don't know who said this one:.
"there's never been a kingdom given to so much bloodshed as that of christ.".
i think that statement is beyond dispute.. farkel.
Surely their god of "science and knowledge" should have stopped all this war, famine and disease by now?
Wish I lived before 1914.
the first poll of britain's churchgoers, carried out for the sunday telegraph, found that thousands of them believe they are being turned down for promotion because of their faith.. one in five said that they had faced opposition at work because of their beliefs.. more than half of them revealed that they had suffered some form of persecution for being a christian.. the findings suggest a growing hostility towards religion in this country, which has been highlighted by a series of clashes between churchgoers and their employers.. and so on.
more at the link.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5413311/christians-risk-rejection-and-discrimination-for-their-faith-a-study-claims.html.
silver lining: there are still christians in gb!.
71% of the Brits identify themselves as christians.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html
Maybe the Christians who feel themselves persecuted are not mainstream christians?
a newly published article by british sociologist david voas argues jehovah's witnesses may be about to experience a collapse in numbers.
contrary to claims by american sociologist rodney stark who predicts strong future growth for jehovah's witnesses, voas shows that jehovah's witnesses' efforts at recruiting new members have become increasingly unsuccessful over the past few decades: the rate of increase has steadily declined, and the number of hours each publisher must preach to produce an extra convert has gone up substantially.
voas suggests a reason for the stagnation may be that there is a natural limit to the number of people in a given population that are susceptible to conversion to sectarian groups like jehovah's witnesses - the 'carrying capacity' of the population, and that the limit has largely been reached.
No one has ever correctly predicted a decline or rise in JW numbers. The 2007 rise for instance surprised many.
red meat.
now don't get mad at me, i don't believe in atheists, i've never met one.. .
--bts.
I've never met one.
Maybe that explains the stinky smell
it's spelt herbs and it's not a silent h, so why do american's pronounce it 'erbs?
.
H-dropping
H-dropping is a linguistic term used to describe the omission of initial /h/ in words like house, heat, and hangover in many dialects of English, such as Cockney and Estuary English. The same phenomenon occurs in many other languages, such as Serbian, and Late Latin, the ancestor of the modern Romance languages. Interestingly, both French and Spanish acquired new initial [h] in mediæval times, but these were later lost in both languages in a "second round" of h-dropping (however it should be noted that some dialects of Spanish re-acquired /h/ from Spanish /x/). Many dialects of Dutch also feature h-dropping, particularly the south western variants. It is also known from several Scandinavian dialects, for instance Älvdalsmål .
It is debated amongst linguists which words originally had an initial /h/ sound. Words such as horrible, habit and harmony all had no such sound in their earliest English form nor were they originally spelt with an h, but it is now widely considered incorrect to drop the /h/ in the pronunciation. [ 1 ]
H-dropping in English is found in all dialects in the weak forms of function words like he, him, her, his, had, and have; and, in most dialects, in all forms of the pronounit — the older form hit survives as the strong form in a few dialects such as Southern American English and also occurs in the Scots language. Because the /h/ of unstressed have is usually dropped, the word is usually pronounced /?v/ in phrases like should have, would have, and could have. These are usually spelled out as "should've", "would've", and "could've".