One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Ten Non-Commandments
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
Nov 1, 2023 12:30:59   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
Rinaldi wrote:
How many h**e posts will you get from the righteous and pious 'christians'?


You mean like your h**e posts?

Reply
Nov 1, 2023 17:02:16   #
tomhoff24
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
I: More scientists now claim man made c*****e c****e is not real.

II: Man made c*****e c****e is not real no matter how much you wish it to be so.

III Scientists say man made climnate change is not real.

IV: Every person has the right to control their own body, and not take chances that put things into their body they can't control. No one has the right to arbitrarily decide that the person within their body is their right to k**l.

Etc

So c*****e c****e is made how so?

Reply
Nov 1, 2023 17:03:35   #
tomhoff24
 
manning5me wrote:
Climate events of catastrophic impact have happened and will happen around the world. Earthquakes both underwater and under land are going to happen. Some underwater ones will result in tsunamis with devastating consequences. Yellowstone caldron comes to mind for when it blows, the whole nation will have effects. Or so it is said. They also say it is due! Then there is el nino and la ninja that effect West coast weather heavily, and they are due as well. Mild winters may be over!


El Nina

Reply
Nov 1, 2023 18:30:57   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Rinaldi wrote:
How many h**e posts will you get from the righteous and pious 'christians'?


We should respond to your constant h**eful atheistic blather against Christians? Nah. You're not worth it. Nothing you birds dream up changes a thing, they're meaningless. You're comparable to a pissant shouting at Mt. Everest except Mt Everest is limited in size and scope.

The only reason Christians ever respond to you is because you're a sick evil man and we are called to fight against evil and also to remind you what you are. Otherwise pissant...

Reply
Nov 1, 2023 18:41:06   #
EmilyD
 
PeterS wrote:
I like number 2. That should blow Blade away...

Yup…💩…#2….💩….is a great….💩…..number for you…..💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩…🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Reply
Nov 1, 2023 19:09:23   #
American Scene
 
padremike wrote:
We should respond to your constant h**eful atheistic blather against Christians? Nah. You're not worth it. Nothing you birds dream up changes a thing, they're meaningless. You're comparable to a pissant shouting at Mt. Everest except Mt Everest is limited in size and scope.

The only reason Christians ever respond to you is because you're a sick evil man and we are called to fight against evil and also to remind you what you are. Otherwise pissant...




You admit you are a childish pissant christian?

Be self aware is a virtue, being stupid and ignorant and telling lies about being a 'padre' isn't.

Change your ways before your god calls you home.

Reply
Nov 1, 2023 20:43:08   #
EmilyD
 
Rinaldi wrote:
You admit you are a childish pissant christian?

Be self aware is a virtue, being stupid and ignorant and telling lies about being a 'padre' isn't.

Change your ways before your god calls you home.

You are not the clever fellow you think you are.

You’ll see soon enough. Padre’s God will soon show you what you are. And your “god” will laugh at it.

Reply
Nov 1, 2023 20:46:56   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Rinaldi wrote:
You admit you are a childish pissant christian?

Be self aware is a virtue, being stupid and ignorant and telling lies about being a 'padre' isn't.

Change your ways before your god calls you home.



Doesn't change a thing, you're still an insignificant pissant and not even a clever one at that.

Reply
Nov 2, 2023 02:37:39   #
nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert
 
PeterS wrote:
I like number 2. That should blow Blade away...


Personal rules are a good thing but remember every time you break a rule it becomes easier and easier. Break too many and it could cause depression. So be careful of what rules you make for yourself. Having faith helps.

Reply
Nov 2, 2023 05:14:08   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PeterS wrote:
I like number 2. That should blow Blade away...
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, you are the most predictable and t***sparent atheist on OPP. Hatred of Christians is SOP for you.

I always strive to understand what is most likely to be true.
And I do so with both a theistic and scientific approach.

As for wishes? Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, see which hand fills the fastest.

I definitely take issue with non-commandment III - "The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world." This is a purely materialistic point of view which in no way renders a theistic approach invalid.

As one scientist put it, "The statement that science is the only path to t***h contradicts itself
because the statement has no basis in science."


Many times throughout the history of science, the diligent application of a scientific method has produced entirely unreliable, even truly undesirable and dangerous, results.

Darwin's theories of evolution and natural se******n are prime examples.
Darwin really screwed the pooch with that one.

The Fathers and Grandfathers of modern science, the great ones, the ones who began to ask the great questions,
were inspired by and dedicated to the concept of a divine creator, a supreme creative intelligence, God.
The thought of and the belief in a Creator was their motivation. Many of them were, or are, Christians.

To name a few, many of whom were or are Christians.

Einstein (1879-1955), Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919),
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961), Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Francis Collins (Born 1950), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937),
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Max Planck (1858-1947), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Rene Descartes (1596-1650),
Robert Boyle (1791-1867), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Charles Darwin (1809-1882),
Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
Albert Einstein


And right up to the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists continued their research with a divine creator in mind.

Then things began to change.
The philosophies of atheist and existentialist philosophers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Marx' collaborator), Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, influenced scientists to take a materialistic approach. "God is dead!"

And among them is Darwin. Although he never abandoned his belief in God, he certainly went off the path with his theories. His theories are decidedly naturalistic and also contributed to the spread of materialistic or naturalistic science devoid of theism.

But now, in the 21st century, with the advancements in scientific knowledge, the materialistic/naturalistic scientific world view is beginning to succumb to the Return to the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe
The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.

Reply
Nov 2, 2023 07:31:00   #
Rose42
 
PeterS wrote:
I like number 2. That should blow Blade away...


You should give more thought to #2. There is a war for your soul whether or not you realize it and these posts of yours show you are fighting being convicted.



Reply
Nov 2, 2023 07:59:15   #
manning5me Loc: Richmond, Va.
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, you are the most predictable and t***sparent atheist on OPP. Hatred of Christians is SOP for you.

I always strive to understand what is most likely to be true.
And I do so with both a theistic and scientific approach.

As for wishes? Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, see which hand fills the fastest.

I definitely take issue with non-commandment III - "The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world." This is a purely materialistic point of view which in no way renders a theistic approach invalid.

As one scientist put it, "The statement that science is the only path to t***h contradicts itself
because the statement has no basis in science."


Many times throughout the history of science, the diligent application of a scientific method has produced entirely unreliable, even truly undesirable and dangerous, results.

Darwin's theories of evolution and natural se******n are prime examples.
Darwin really screwed the pooch with that one.

The Fathers and Grandfathers of modern science, the great ones, the ones who began to ask the great questions,
were inspired by and dedicated to the concept of a divine creator, a supreme creative intelligence, God.
The thought of and the belief in a Creator was their motivation. Many of them were, or are, Christians.

To name a few, many of whom were or are Christians.

Einstein (1879-1955), Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919),
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961), Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Francis Collins (Born 1950), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937),
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Max Planck (1858-1947), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Rene Descartes (1596-1650),
Robert Boyle (1791-1867), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Charles Darwin (1809-1882),
Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
Albert Einstein


And right up to the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists continued their research with a divine creator in mind.

Then things began to change.
The philosophies of atheist and existentialist philosophers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Marx' collaborator), Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, influenced scientists to take a materialistic approach. "God is dead!"

And among them is Darwin. Although he never abandoned his belief in God, he certainly went off the path with his theories. His theories are decidedly naturalistic and also contributed to the spread of materialistic or naturalistic science devoid of theism.

But now, in the 21st century, with the advancements in scientific knowledge, the materialistic/naturalistic scientific world view is beginning to succumb to the Return to the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe
The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, y... (show quote)


======================

Reply
Nov 2, 2023 08:13:38   #
XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, you are the most predictable and t***sparent atheist on OPP. Hatred of Christians is SOP for you.

I always strive to understand what is most likely to be true.
And I do so with both a theistic and scientific approach.

As for wishes? Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, see which hand fills the fastest.

I definitely take issue with non-commandment III - "The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world." This is a purely materialistic point of view which in no way renders a theistic approach invalid.

As one scientist put it, "The statement that science is the only path to t***h contradicts itself
because the statement has no basis in science."


Many times throughout the history of science, the diligent application of a scientific method has produced entirely unreliable, even truly undesirable and dangerous, results.

Darwin's theories of evolution and natural se******n are prime examples.
Darwin really screwed the pooch with that one.

The Fathers and Grandfathers of modern science, the great ones, the ones who began to ask the great questions,
were inspired by and dedicated to the concept of a divine creator, a supreme creative intelligence, God.
The thought of and the belief in a Creator was their motivation. Many of them were, or are, Christians.

To name a few, many of whom were or are Christians.

Einstein (1879-1955), Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919),
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961), Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Francis Collins (Born 1950), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937),
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Max Planck (1858-1947), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Rene Descartes (1596-1650),
Robert Boyle (1791-1867), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Charles Darwin (1809-1882),
Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
Albert Einstein


And right up to the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists continued their research with a divine creator in mind.

Then things began to change.
The philosophies of atheist and existentialist philosophers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Marx' collaborator), Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, influenced scientists to take a materialistic approach. "God is dead!"

And among them is Darwin. Although he never abandoned his belief in God, he certainly went off the path with his theories. His theories are decidedly naturalistic and also contributed to the spread of materialistic or naturalistic science devoid of theism.

But now, in the 21st century, with the advancements in scientific knowledge, the materialistic/naturalistic scientific world view is beginning to succumb to the Return to the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe
The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, y... (show quote)


👍👍👍👍👍

Reply
Nov 2, 2023 08:58:36   #
Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, you are the most predictable and t***sparent atheist on OPP. Hatred of Christians is SOP for you.

I always strive to understand what is most likely to be true.
And I do so with both a theistic and scientific approach.

As for wishes? Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, see which hand fills the fastest.

I definitely take issue with non-commandment III - "The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world." This is a purely materialistic point of view which in no way renders a theistic approach invalid.

As one scientist put it, "The statement that science is the only path to t***h contradicts itself
because the statement has no basis in science."


Many times throughout the history of science, the diligent application of a scientific method has produced entirely unreliable, even truly undesirable and dangerous, results.

Darwin's theories of evolution and natural se******n are prime examples.
Darwin really screwed the pooch with that one.

The Fathers and Grandfathers of modern science, the great ones, the ones who began to ask the great questions,
were inspired by and dedicated to the concept of a divine creator, a supreme creative intelligence, God.
The thought of and the belief in a Creator was their motivation. Many of them were, or are, Christians.

To name a few, many of whom were or are Christians.

Einstein (1879-1955), Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919),
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961), Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Francis Collins (Born 1950), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937),
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Max Planck (1858-1947), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Rene Descartes (1596-1650),
Robert Boyle (1791-1867), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Charles Darwin (1809-1882),
Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
Albert Einstein


And right up to the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists continued their research with a divine creator in mind.

Then things began to change.
The philosophies of atheist and existentialist philosophers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Marx' collaborator), Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, influenced scientists to take a materialistic approach. "God is dead!"

And among them is Darwin. Although he never abandoned his belief in God, he certainly went off the path with his theories. His theories are decidedly naturalistic and also contributed to the spread of materialistic or naturalistic science devoid of theism.

But now, in the 21st century, with the advancements in scientific knowledge, the materialistic/naturalistic scientific world view is beginning to succumb to the Return to the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe
The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, y... (show quote)


Note the "religion" of the bad guys..almost exclusively ✡️

Reply
Nov 2, 2023 10:19:26   #
nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, you are the most predictable and t***sparent atheist on OPP. Hatred of Christians is SOP for you.

I always strive to understand what is most likely to be true.
And I do so with both a theistic and scientific approach.

As for wishes? Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, see which hand fills the fastest.

I definitely take issue with non-commandment III - "The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world." This is a purely materialistic point of view which in no way renders a theistic approach invalid.

As one scientist put it, "The statement that science is the only path to t***h contradicts itself
because the statement has no basis in science."


Many times throughout the history of science, the diligent application of a scientific method has produced entirely unreliable, even truly undesirable and dangerous, results.

Darwin's theories of evolution and natural se******n are prime examples.
Darwin really screwed the pooch with that one.

The Fathers and Grandfathers of modern science, the great ones, the ones who began to ask the great questions,
were inspired by and dedicated to the concept of a divine creator, a supreme creative intelligence, God.
The thought of and the belief in a Creator was their motivation. Many of them were, or are, Christians.

To name a few, many of whom were or are Christians.

Einstein (1879-1955), Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919),
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961), Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Francis Collins (Born 1950), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937),
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), Max Planck (1858-1947), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Rene Descartes (1596-1650),
Robert Boyle (1791-1867), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Charles Darwin (1809-1882),
Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
Albert Einstein


And right up to the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists continued their research with a divine creator in mind.

Then things began to change.
The philosophies of atheist and existentialist philosophers like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Marx' collaborator), Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, influenced scientists to take a materialistic approach. "God is dead!"

And among them is Darwin. Although he never abandoned his belief in God, he certainly went off the path with his theories. His theories are decidedly naturalistic and also contributed to the spread of materialistic or naturalistic science devoid of theism.

But now, in the 21st century, with the advancements in scientific knowledge, the materialistic/naturalistic scientific world view is beginning to succumb to the Return to the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe
The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
Nothing you say or can say blows me away, Peter, y... (show quote)

Great post. One of many from you👍

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.