O'Reilly -Tides prove God!

[SensibleManiac]

Kenpo 5-0 I don't want to turn this into a flame war and I'm not trying to be hostile.
I knowit's easier to misunderstand each other when people aren't speaking face to face (even then it's not easy)

Your study "suggests", and there is a difference between direct and indirect links and what a study may "suggest".

Your "proof" only further proves my point.

One researcher described it as a dangerous tool, Personally I don't like keeping dangerous tools around my kids and especially using those tools on them, and would doubt that any intelligent person who cares about their children would either, the exception being in the hands of someone who really knows what they are doing and even then it's not easy but because there is a CERTAIN benefit. And they would never use it when a better tool exists, that isn't dangerous.
Yes much of this is my OPINION (not all) but logic would dictate using the tool that isn't dangerous and that is more effective. Especially in the long run.

My position right now is that I believe in God, however have no explanation for the nature of God, nor whether it has, in fact, decided to communicate with us on a level that we can understand it.

So there could be one or many, or all. I lean towards the idea that if God does indeed communicate with man, he needs to do so in a way that they can understand him. And since we all have different cultural attributes, he must address us in differing manners. Hence, the many religions all express their understanding of God as filtered through their cultural experiences and understanding.

You can believe what ever you want, however being clear on your motives for believing will reveal much.

I can say I WANT God to exist as well, (as I know that God would be nothing like what people percieve,) I can want and believe all I want, that doesn't make it true though.

Believing in God if involving faith, doesn't mean that one knows God exists, it's important to make this distinction, that by having faith, one doesn't know.

And if all these religious believers don't know but rather have faith and believe.

Why are they so sure of their positions and beliefs?

 

[billc]

they are sure of their position because they have faith.

 

[Cirdan]

Why are they so sure of their positions and beliefs?

Because doubt earns you a one way ticked on the coal wagon to the BBQ place?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Kenpo 5-0 I don't want to turn this into a flame war and I'm not trying to be hostile.
I knowit's easier to misunderstand each other when people aren't speaking face to face (even then it's not easy)

Your study "suggests", and there is a difference between direct and indirect links and what a study may "suggest".

Your "proof" only further proves my point.

And every study that I've seen that says that spanking is bad for you also "suggests" that it is bad for you. So your "proof" is as good as mine.

One researcher described it as a dangerous tool, Personally I don't like keeping dangerous tools around my kids and especially using those tools on them, and would doubt that any intelligent person who cares about their children would either, the exception being in the hands of someone who really knows what they are doing and even then it's not easy but because there is a CERTAIN benefit. And they would never use it when a better tool exists, that isn't dangerous.
Yes much of this is my OPINION (not all) but logic would dictate using the tool that isn't dangerous and that is more effective. Especially in the long run.
[/quote]

So, when a study shows that children are better off when they have been spanked properly as opposed to children who haven't been spanked, what "better" tool is there.

Any tool can be misapplied and cause damage. Or not work at all. But even some of these researchers suggest the children are better off when they are spanked. They weigh the risks and make their judgements based on that. But, I would suggest that it is because their is a wide disparity between people about the amount and conditions in which spanking is appropriate, and when making blanket suggestions to such a diverse group of people, it is easier to say "don't do it", then to suggest a conditional policy as to when it is appropriate.

You can believe what ever you want, however being clear on your motives for believing will reveal much.

I agree.

I can say I WANT God to exist as well, (as I know that God would be nothing like what people percieve,) I can want and believe all I want, that doesn't make it true though.

You can also WANT God not to exist, and believe it, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist.

Believing in God if involving faith, doesn't mean that one knows God exists, it's important to make this distinction, that by having faith, one doesn't know.

Yes, and having faith in my belief that a person is about to shoot me (as per my above example) means that I don't KNOW that he's reaching for a weapon, but utilizing the information available to me at the time.

Why is faith in God so different?

And if all these religious believers don't know but rather have faith and believe.

Why are they so sure of their positions and beliefs?

As Bill said, because of faith. How do you know that your spouse won't cheat on you? How do you know that your friend isn't talking negatively about you behind your back?

Faith is not a bad thing, but like all things, can be misapplied.

 

[elder999]

And here ya go.....:lfao:

 

[granfire]

And here ya go.....:lfao:

:lfao:


just waht I needed!