Do you have a link? Isn't that more about an individual's right to believe what he wants without suffering prejudice and discrimination?
I think that more to do with his defence. There are lots of reports on the BBC site, this one I think gives the background and reasons for the charges related to the case. Pastor James McConnell faces prosecution over Islam sermon streaming - BBC News
Thank you Sir. Some people just get hung up on spelling and grammar. Its usually when they have ran out of anything constructive to contribute or realise my car is considerably better than there's is
You misspelt "car", by the way. You forgot to stick an extra "r" on the end, but had you remembered, you would have been wrong to do so. I trust that is clear.
Did you use the wrong words in that post deliberately to annoy people? I am not "hung up on spelling and grammar" but I do believe in using language correctly. Details matter; if something can be misinterpreted there's a good chance it will be. I don't care how big your car is (BCSD) but I do care about the use of language.
I understand the point you are making. Hopefully you will acknowledge my point... This is my problem with the scientific and academic community. We have had discussions similar to this one before - where I say "science cannot prove that there is no god" and someone else says "we don't HAVE to prove that there isn't one" - why not ? You could say that it's self-evident. I would make the counter-point that it is self-evident that humans are a totally insignificant part of an enormous universe that we have no way of explaining or even adequately describing. And no, I'm not saying that I believe in any kind of god. I'm just saying that if people would open their minds to the posibility that science might not have all the answers then there might be more room for everyone's views. Do you see my point? You say that you don't have to prove you assertion, but expect others to have to prove theirs... All I have asked for, on more than one occasion, is for the "academics" and "scientists" on here to do what I have already done - to admit that they don't know everything, and that there is the chance (maybe the very tiniest possibility) that they might be wrong. I don't think that's too much to ask for. I am now expecting verbose, long-winded and pointless answers from "the usual suspects".
If you think about it logically it's not possible to prove that something does not exist - but that fact in itself does not make it more like that something does exist, as my teapot in space analogy illustrates. Pick on any number of things you are pretty sure don't exist - little green men living at the bottom of your garden for example. Now think about how you'd go about proving their non-existence. Romantic fantasies are fine. Just don't put them forward as something that should have any bearing on the way we order our lives - unless or until they are proved to have the capacity to improve them. Please!
I did not, and have not, put forward any "romantic fantasies" - in fact I specifically said that I wasn't saying I believed in any kind of god. As a counter-point : Scientific theories are fine. Just don't put them forward as something that should have any bearing on the way we order our lives - unless or until they are proved to have the capacity to improve them. All I have asked for, again, is for the "academics" and "scientists" on here to do what I have already done - to admit that they don't know everything, and that there is the chance (maybe the very tiniest possibility) that they might be wrong...
I have said in previous posts that science does not know everything about our vast and mysterious universe but I believe it very soon will. That is my opinion based on the incredibly rapid advances in our knowledge that have already been made since we entered the digital age because those advances must surely gather pace as processing power increases. It's just an opinion and I may be proved wrong in that it won't happen in my lifetime. But that does not alter the fact that science will one day provide all the answers. I'm what area of life do you assert that science cannot ever provide the answers?
How science has been proved to have the capacity to improve our lives. Difficult one that ... NOT! Irrigation, steam power, electricity, pasteurisation, wind power, wave power, antibiotics, anaesthetics, Viagra, the wheel, tractors, the flushing toilet ... Bored now but you get my drift.
But JR they might be right no one knows for sure Opinions differ so we all think we are right, well I am right always
On the balance of probabilities, given science's record, he will turn out to be wrong though. Just as on the balance of probabilities you will be wrong one day (and might even admit it!)
All I know is I have a gigantic invisible winged horse living in my garage but he is never there when I go in there to turf him out. It's making me exceedingly angry and science cannot do a damned thing about it. Stupid science.
That's because you place your faith in the wrong interpretation of science Loz and that's closing your eyes to the obvious. If you'd chosen the right one you'd see him no problem.
I didn't think it was an error! I thought you were being funny. That's why I said I loved it. As predictive errors go it was an excellent one. As was joinery instead of journey. Almost Pythonesque bathos if you think of the ranting philosophers scene in Life of Brian.
