Al Gore and his peace prize. *this might get monkey*

[JoostinOnline]

It saddens me when I see people take scripture out of context in order to twist it.

[DigiTan]

Low blow, leofox. Low blow.

[leofox]

Useful moral lessons?
One only needs to look at http://www.evilbible.com/ to learn(or confirm the suspicion) that the bible is not so morally-correct after all..

It's a very old and very big book. It's bound to be full of stuff that seems morally incorrect today.

Obviously taking stuff out of context is fun:

[King Harold]

Well, my history-senses tell me that you are right about it having been morally-correct long ago (long as in "about 2k years"), which that shows how twisted crazy and barbaric people were back then
It's still 'in there' though, so that won't help people who believe the bible is a "book of truth" (aka 'extremists')

[Homestar]

Guys.. the bible is just a book. It's been translated a couple of times, and it's about 2000 years old (let alone the old testament).
The bible has some useful moral lessons in there, but you cannot read everything in it as fact! Regardless of being religious or not.

Low blow, leofox. Low blow.

Well, my history-senses tell me that you are right about it having been morally-correct long ago (long as in "about 2k years"), which that shows how twisted crazy and barbaric people were back then
It's still 'in there' though, so that won't help people who believe the bible is a "book of truth" (aka 'extremists')< and you're a Cotton-Headed Ninnymuggins

All kidding aside, inorder for leofox's comment to be a low blow it has to hold water to some degree. As far as king Harold's goes, it's a rather empty blow hard.

2000 years old, or 1 billion years old, right and wrong doesn't change, which is why there isn't an expiration date on any the Bible's morals. The only thing that changed between the Old and the New Testament was the system in which those morals ran. I don't need to defend the Bible, as it clearly defends, and stands for itself. But of you're going to attack it and those who believe in it, you might want to give the thing a read first; and you'll see how silly you're arguments are. Take anything out of context and it doesn't make sense, which is all that you and your websites do.

As if mere life itself wasn't enough, I still am amazed how things as complicated as DNA, a written language which an impossible progression of chances aided by natural selection theoretically could have caused, can be viewed as anything less than an act of God. Even a language that is founded, created, or made by chance is completely worthless without a valid interpretation. I can read Japanese, French, and Arabic all I want, but it won't mean anything to me because I can't understand or interpret those languages. How does Darwinian chance provide an interpretation for the cells making up our bodies to read the archives of DNA contained within them. Languages cannot happen, They must be created by a being who assigns meaning to combinations of characters.


It takes little "faith"* (*belief that is not based on proof) to believe in God, but it takes a lot of "faith" to believe there is no God.

**BTW, "Faith" in the Christian religion is not believing in what has no proof, but in things that cannot be explained. When used properly, this does not mean that because things cannot be explained they have no proof. Many things are this way, for instance we have have hard proof that gravity exists, but not a scientist can honestly explain why or how. Having faith in gravity would mean dropping a rock knowing it will fall down, but having no human terms of explaining it.

[qarnos]

As if mere life itself wasn't enough, I still am amazed how things as complicated as DNA, a written language which an impossible progression of chances aided by natural selection theoretically could have caused, can be viewed as anything less than an act of God. Even a language that is founded, created, or made by chance is completely worthless without a valid interpretation. I can read Japanese, French, and Arabic all I want, but it won't mean anything to me because I can't understand or interpret those languages. How does Darwinian chance provide an interpretation for the cells making up our bodies to read the archives of DNA contained within them. Languages cannot happen, They must be created by a being who assigns meaning to combinations of characters.

But by saying "God did it" you are not explaining anything at all. In fact, you're raising an even bigger question - who made God?

Any God capable of creating something as complex as the Universe would need to be at least as complex, if not more so, than what you are trying to explain, and that demands an explanation in its own right!

It's all good and well to say, "God as always existed", but if we are going to be that lazy then I might as well say DNA has always existed; life has always existed. There! No explanations required!

[leofox]

It takes little "faith"* (*belief that is not based on proof) to believe in God, but it takes a lot of "faith" to believe there is no God.

The beautiful thing about science is that it needs no faith, it just needs your eyes (i remember this being a quote of someone but i can't remember who said it). It doesn't give you a 'God did it' explanation of everything, but instead tries to find a logical explanation. In that sense, religion is stopping us from finding the truth.

But i remember this being about Al Gore...
I'm not sure if he deserves the Nobel prize for peace, because it's not really clear to me what the climate has to do with peace.
I think he's done some good things though in bringing this to attention, I think we all need to do something to prevent pollution and stop climate change.
And he invented the internet too

[Homestar]

But i remember this being about Al Gore...

Then why does religion keep getting brought up? I'm merely responding to what was said.

[tr1p1ea]

This thread is being locked for a number of reasons, not to mention its spiralling into a religous debate in which we have had numerous.