Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
[remainder of subject line]: it is possible to regrow new legs, hands and so on.

----------

Children of the corn repent your sins! Nah you’re the sort of people that’s mind set is flat world. Do you recall the answers are at futureatme?  If I recall the BBC last week reported a story about lad tests that show it is possible to regrow new legs, hands and so on.
The snail fur can grow back a new head after only a few days (Regenerative Medicine Institute, Galway)
It’s this talent that has captured the attention of Uri Frank and colleagues at Galway’s Regenerative Medicine Institute. Along with a growing number of researchers, he claims that the tissue regeneration seen in creatures like Hydractinia could be an ancient power possessed by most animals, including humans – it’s just dormant. So, how does this “snail fur” regrow itself? And could it hold the key to tissue regeneration in human beings too?

Many animals can regenerate body parts, from starfish to salamanders. But primitive snail fur is unusual, not least because its abilities are so extreme.

Let me try and explain the GOD thing in a way people like you that have been controlled from birth to think how your masters need you to think may understand. When I stated to the G W Bush administration that Bushy boy will use the words from JF Kennedy we choose to go to MARs instead of using the word moon. Or even the fact he would address the world with god whispered in my ear and told me to go to war.
It was I who whispered in his ear and it was also I that told them there is nothing their administration can do to stop Bush from stating this and using the exact words I sent to them.
Now children this is documented facts via the NY Times, ABC and so on. What I was doing with your web site is exactly that documenting fact that will happen. You could see the god thing as a form of matrix without the plug-in part or war. I don’t do man dressed in robes with word to control by fear. If you can truly switch of the control button grown into your brain from birth for just a moment. Then you will see everything is god and god is everything. In a letter to professor Hawking G.O.D was explained in more detail along with mirror time bubble space and the fact old Albert mislead the world. I have subsequently noticed now the Hawk has adopted that part on my concept.
As it is almost Halloween you should know the scary parts from a dimension beyond your comprehension of thought. Let’s just think of this as my hobby rather than someone trying to convince, convert or whatever you.
In my letters from 1990s and so on to President at the time Bill Clinton and then to be PM Tony Blair, President Bush and Gordon Brown and even companies like RBS, Ford motors, GM, and much more all had info that could not have been know at the time of sending it. In 1997 PM Blair acknowledged my letter as did Ford, GM, RBS and so on about the clear warning of a massive recession that will hit the world in 2007.  You could imagine the laughter in the chairmen’s offices as they responded to my letters. This would be impossible to happen or they would have to go cap in hand to the government to save their businesses. Again I responded with more info of events that would happen. In the hope they would rethink their long-term plans and use my alternative concepts. At one point to prove the fact that time can be bent and what will happen, I sent a letter a fax and even an email to the chairman of BMW on the eve of the sale of Rover cars, stating that he will change his mind and cancel the expected sale the next day. History was written and that is what happened. I still have the documents and his response. Another example is I sent the complete picture of the cartoon that cussed riots around the world to PM Blair via snail mail and his internal mail system along with other info a year before the picture was ever published. I could go on and on with examples like this but, behind all of this is the true concept, weapon systems and the end of our future.
To inform a President as some may see as a mad man G W Bush that he would reform the weapon system star wars (son of star wars) and to state it was useless is not the brightest concept to do. However, in the back ground when sending info to companies and the media this was going on. In 1981 while on holiday I came across area 51 and in 1995 via an invite to NASA in DC the picture was clear that sending info out was the only way to help prevent?
Have a nice day.  And remember your prayers?
92
Religion In The News / Re: Pope says God not a magician
« Last post by Ataraxia on Yesterday at 05:44:28 AM »
Quote from: Pope

“When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”


That does not follow. Francis is just explaining how he believes god did it. That doesn't show that god couldn't do it another way.
93
General Religious Discussion / another dog forum, another fundy attack
« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 02:25:26 AM »
completely different dog forum to the one I have mentioned before. I am not a member of this one but was researching some dogs and came across this recent thread, now locked.

the mods tried hard to keep a lid on it but the xians cried persecution.

this pattern is so familiar now.

lol the xians insulted people quick and kept doing it and kept apologising on the grounds of misunderstanding.

have a read;

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/chat-room/499930-question-christians.html
94
If he understands the words in English, our friend cloverleaf would no doubt respond that "Allah" is the more accurate interpretation.  Because he's a Muslim.

You really needed to hear the answer?

I think eh! was probably trying to challenge Cloverleaf and Skep to show us which of them is right.  Skep is Absolutely Certain that Christianity is true and he could not possibly be deceived.  Cloverleaf is Absolutely Certain that Islam is true and he could not possibly be deceived.  And yet, they cannot both be right.  Either Jesus is the second Person of a Trinity (Christianity) or a revered, but wholly non-divine Prophet who plays second fiddle to Mohammad, the final, and greatest Prophet (Islam).

So how 'bout it guys?  How can we know that you are right and the other guy is wrong?
95
Furthermore, history is rife with examples where people did believe in things for which there was no evidence.  The Norse pantheon.  The Egyptian pantheon.  The Greco-Roman pantheon.  The Hindu pantheon.  The Shinto pantheon.  The Native American pantheon.  Not to mention plenty of other pantheons; practically one for every culture which has ever existed.

If anything, the Pagan pantheons have better evidential support.  If you were to go back in time, tell an Egyptian priest you did not believe in deities, and challenge him to provide evidence, he'd probably look at you like you were crazy and point at the Sun.  And if you were to whip out a computer tablet and show him a scientific understanding of the Sun, I wouldn't be surprised if he said, "O mighty Magician!  You have shown us that Amun Re is EVEN MORE AMAZING THAN WE THOUGHT!  HOLY SHIT!" ;)

Pagan understandings of the Cosmos may have been inaccurate, but at least they observed real, powerful forces and principles that actually exist, and crafted their mythologies around interpreting their behavior.  Since Pagans generally are not as obsessed with the idea that their old stories must be Absolutely, Literally, Infallibly True as conservative Christians, Muslims, and Jews are, they have a much easier time updating their theologies to incorporate modern science.  This is not to say they don't have their own species of bunkum, but IMO they are in a much stronger (or "much less weak" :) ) position than Abrahamic monotheists are.
96
I am not being tricked because Satan can't cast out Satan. Your point was brought up 2,000 years ago right to Jesus' face:

Matthew 12:

22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So, you've never heard of a two-person con, or a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine?  Your naivete is cute, but it does not lend credence to your claims.  If Satan existed, he would run circles around you.

As for Jesus' "rebuttal" of the Pharisees' charge, it makes perfect sense for "Satan to cast out Satan" (i.e., cast out his own subordinate demons with their cooperation in the ruse) if the Exorcist Salvation Show tricks people into believing what Satan and his demons want them to believe.

In fact, the Gospel stories of demon-exorcism fit this interpretation quite nicely.  If the demons wanted to retain control of their thralls and avoid being cast out by Jesus, all they had to do was Run Away.  The Gospel stories tell us quite plainly that the demons knew who Jesus was (so he couldn't catch them by surprise), and they knew he was more powerful than them.  They had plenty of advance warning that he was in the neighborhood (Star of Bethlehem, ~30 years prior), so plenty of time to get out of Dodge, or just go possess people in China.

Instead, they do exactly what they would do if they were playing for Team Jesus.  They walk their thralls right up to him, confront him openly, loudly proclaim him to be the Son of God in public, and then Jesus performs the exorcism.  They do more to promote his ministry than his own disciples!  They were perfect shills, and you Christians have been falling for it for 2,000 years.

Of course, nothing the "demons" did couldn't be done by ordinary people with some acting skill working for Jesus.  It wouldn't even be suspicious for them to show up in the congregation later, since they were "cured" and became followers of Jesus.

97
Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion / Re: For those that used to be religious
« Last post by Willie on Yesterday at 01:45:12 AM »
This is a question for those that used to be Christian or catholic, especially when they were a teenager.
Did you have this overwhelming guilt when you jerked off?

Yes, definitely. Discovering my sexuality was an enormously traumatic experience, partly because my religious upbringing implanted the idea that everything sexual was evil, ugly, sin that would lead to a well deserved place in hell, and partly because of being kept in a state of ignorance.

When I was about 5, my dad was building a house (our house, in fact), and while he was installing a toilet, I said something, I can't remember exactly what, about "mom's peewee" (the word "penis" was not yet in my vocabulary). My dad told me that girls don't have peewees. I was astonished by this revelation, and asked "Then how do they pee?". He explained that they have an opening that they pee through. They can't aim the way guys can, so they pee sitting down instead of standing up. My mental image at this point was something like the smooth featureless crotch of a Barbie doll with tiny hole to squirt pee through. Still pretty far from reality, but at least it was better than still thinking that girls have penises. This tidbit of information, plus the idea that sex is some kind of terrible evil thing that shouldn't even be spoken of, much less engaged in, constitutes the entirety of what I learned about sex from my parents. Everything else that I learned about sex as a kid, I learned from other kids.

I hit puberty completely unprepared for all those perfectly normal "dirty" thoughts and intensely pleasurable physical sensations. I had no idea what was normal or healthy or acceptable. My conception of "acceptable" was that none of it was acceptable. I thought I was some kind of freak. An abomination. I hated myself. I prayed about it and begged God to help me overcome it. I made a promise to God that I would stop jacking off and fantasizing. That lasted only a couple of days. I broke my promise to God. I hated myself even more. From about age 12 to 14, I had nearly constant thoughts of suicide, driven mostly by this sexual guilt. I was always dreaming up schemes about how to do it, and trying to summon the courage to follow through. Fortunately, I was never able to summon said courage. Unfortunately, that failure added to my self hate. I believed that I was evil. I believed that I deserved to die. I believed that the world would be a better place with an abomination like me gone from it. I hated myself so much that I didn't see suicide as an escape. I saw it as justice.

And if so, how did you handle it?

I didn't. It damn near killed me.

Did you feel it was a positive thing in terms of exercising control over your body in that way?

No. It has no redeeming value whatsoever. It's just cruelty.

98
General Religious Discussion / Re: Why I am right
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Yesterday at 01:18:53 AM »
Of course I am right.

One of the reasons why you won't change me (not most important one) is that I WANT to believe. I want my life to have a meaning that comes from a place that is not me and isn't you or anyone else.

Wanting something does not make it true. Let's just take two items from your long shopping list of wishful thinking to show how wanting something turns your brain into ignorance soup.

Of course I am right.

I don't choose Atheism, because it is fundamentally:

> Self-contradictory: It claims no absolute truth exists (everything is a function of energy), but makes that claim as an absolute truth. (An absolute OBJECTIVE truth cannot exist, unless it is outside/separate of us humans  - the SUBJECTS - and that objective truth must reside in something/somewhere that is NOT mattter.)

This is a logical fallacy of confusing sets and elements. It is also factually incorrect since there exists the objective truth that humans believe stupid ideas. For example, there is the objective truth that you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course I am right.

I have come across most of the arguments for and against, including:

The origin of the universe, including how recent discoveries disproved the steady state model and the oscillating model. Alternatively the Big Bang model supports theism, and it is supported by multiple recent discoveries.
 
The fine-tuning of physical constants for life means that there are over 100 examples of constants that must be selected within a narrow range in order for the universe to support the minimal requirements for life, including mass density, strong nuclear force and carbon formation.

Firstly, the fine tuning argument is a fallacy because there are no constants in the universe which guarantee that humans will exist.

Secondly, the universe is not as fine-tuned as it could be, so it cannot be claimed that the universe was designed for greatest efficiency.

Thirdly, the most important constant is the one which relates to the way the universe came into existence. It is the energy of the universe. There is only one single value that the energy of the universe can have if the universe came into existence without a cause. Guess what! To within the accuracy of experiments done so far, it appears that the universe does have the single constant value which it must have, in order to come into existence without any cause or god being involved. In fact this one value guarantees that universes will create themselves from nothing.

I doubt that you will want to claim ever again that the Big Bang and fine-tuning supports theism or christianity, but on the other hand it is an objective truth that humans will believe stupid ideas.

99
Religion In The News / Re: Pope says God not a magician
« Last post by wright on Yesterday at 12:17:33 AM »
Theistic evolution is accepted by most Catholics; this isn't that surprising. Here's another take on it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/28/apparently-no-one-understands-that-catholics-are-generally-accepting-of-evolution/


100
Science / Re: scientific method
« Last post by Astreja on October 28, 2014, 11:56:10 PM »
Cloverleaf, from which university did you receive your Ph.D. in sociology?  What was the subject of your dissertation?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]