Search results

Aha. Ok, fair enough then! I apologise and take it back. Will be interesting to see this year's results!

To be honest though, I do believe that a doctor should only tell you to use drugs that have been proven in large scale tests. Unproven (in the sense that I used originally) drugs - whether chemical, herbal, whatever - should not be made available on the NHS, and should not be encouraged by...

Fair enough. Slightly different question then, but why do you define that "Source" to be the Christian God if you don't believe the word of the Bible? You may as well say it's either a completely different god unique to you, or decide to define it as one of the gods of a different faith? There...

I'm confused as to what you mean here. I realise that we (either NSC or the world as a whole) are never going to agree on whether a god exists or not. However, irrespective of whether we know which it is, it does have to be one of those options. Either there is a god, or there is not. If there...

And what happens in a court of law when witnesses each have directly contradicting testimonies? The analogy can be continued by introducing a second witness who testifies as to the literal truth of the Sikh holy book. Or that of Hinduism. Or... [repeat ad nauseum]. How does that work?

With all due respect, there are plenty of users here having a perfectly mature debate; to delete the thread would not be fair on them. If someone went in with a vicious challenge on the pitch, the ref may well send them off; he wouldn't postpone the match. Deleting abusive posts would be...

Did you say it? Maybe not. Is it common Christian teaching that Jesus died for our sins? Yes. Which was my point. You don't believe the common teaching that he sacrificed himself for us, in order that we may be forgiven?

Which would make perfect sense... if Jesus wasn't God. If they are the same person/deity/thing (whichever word fits best here) then the above simply doesn't make any sense. Which kind of brings us to one of the main problems I have with religion, or the religious. When something doesn't make...

He "died for our sins". Why did his forgiveness have to have anything to do with his death?

Hang on, if he was God, why did he sacrifice himself for our sins? Why didn't he just say "You know what? I've decided to forgive you all. There you go, you're all forgiven. And I can do that, because I am God."

A figure which probably includes me, as I was baptised as a child, before I had the choice. Kind of brings us whole circle really to the "Is it right to indoctrinate a child" debate. Right or wrong though, I'm on the church's books as a christian, counting towards their figures, and there is...

I agree it does not hurt a child to be told about God. I do, however, believe that it does hurt a child to teach them that a god (any god) is a matter of fact, and to hide from them that it is perfectly fine, reasonable and even common to believe otherwise. In terms of "mental" harm, teaching a...

"Duty" to infringe on the privacy of others, and their rights to be left to their beliefs? Outrageous! You're right. Faith schools have been banned now after all. Oh no, wait - there are hundreds and they still receive funding from the state. Still, at least we live in a democracy free from...

On the street, no. But maybe in a smaller palace. Some of the billions he has could be used for some good in the world, rather than for letting him show off. The Catholic Church could, for example, advance cancer/HIV research by years in one go. Or feed Africa. Or... well, you can do this bit...

I completely agree statistics can be used to skew the truth - hence my reluctance to take it as fact when to poster above says "Look, I've got numbers to show that we don't have as much respect for the elderly as we used to".

If you insist... 1) This offers no evidence whatsoever as to whether or not your god exists. 2) It's complete nonsense. For thousands of years non-believers have been oppressed, and banned (even on punishment of death in the past) from speaking their mind. Yet it is the non-believers who force...

I think your post reveals you have a very narrow definition of "child abuse". Nobody is suggesting that the parents have any intention of abusing their child, just that the child's right to freely choose their religion is far more important than the parents' "right" to choose it for them. You...

Agreed. I'm not going to argue with the point that those companies are out to make a profit. Of course they are - sorry, I should have worded it better. My point is that not all such companies are anti-herbal 'medicine'; that there are other companies out there - maybe not quite the same...

Clever. You don't actually link to where those came from (so I've had to find them myself), and then you cherry pick from the source (probably because you didn't think I'd find it?) If anyone else cares, here's the link: http://www.newnation.co/forums/archive/index.php/t-110210.html ...and...

No, they're not. I read your post to mean that all money is used to study "mainstream" medicine - so I refuted it with evidence that it isn't. So to be clear, your argument is what? That some money goes on mainstream medicine and some goes on herbal? Fine - I agree. Not sure how that proves...