OT-Tolerance

he wouldn't...........would he?

Reply to
theguy
Loading thread data ...

Budd's wife's name isn't "Clare" is it?

If so, that ole fart just pulled off a doozie. :-)

Craig C.

Reply to
Craig C.

And I haven't heard from Budd in a while, I wonder.....

Reply to
TBone

understanding.

Now if you didn't read Budds rants, then how exactly can you say this???? Is this Budd?!?!?!?!

Reply to
TBone

As I stated earlier, the burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim not the doubter. If you want to believe in something with no physical being you are free to do so but when you want your beliefs to be the basis of government you must prove the existence of your God before expecting others to live by his/her "teachings". That is the gist of this thread and the one that spawned it, it's not about the existence or non-existence of God but it is about believers forcing their views on non-believers by interjecting religion into government.

Margaret Mitchell wrote the novel Gone With the Wind. It is based on a known historical period and some of the events are historically accurate. Does that mean there actually was a plantation called Tara? Does that prove that there was a real-life character called Rhett Butler or Scarett O'Hara? Using your logic, partial accuracy in the novel "means there is a better chance it IS true than that it is not".

Reply to
John Kunkel

Doubtful but.....................

Reply to
Roy

There are writings of other cultures and other Gods throughout the worlds history. The people and places in these writings have been shown to exist. Were the spiritual parts of these writings factual? If they were then the Bible is in conflict with them yet these cultures believed just as strongly as those of todays religions. Some of these ancient religions lasted far longer than the rather young Christianity of today. So what happened to these lost religions? Why were they all wrong and todays religion is the correct one?

Reply to
miles

No, this rant was going on for so long before I came on the scene that I haven't even SEEN Budd's rants. My mail server was incommunicado for several months and I just got back on at what appears to have been the tail end of Budd's rants.

And no, I'm not Budd's wife. I HAVE a wife. And I don't know Budd.

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

Try google and have a look.

Reply to
Roy

you sure have made some strange statements then, considering that you don't know him and have not read what he has written. like the one about how many of the members here are more intolerant than budd. how do you come to make that sort of statement without (admittedly.......by you) you don't even know what has been said or written? honestly, kind of sounds like your ass over loaded your mouth on this one.

Reply to
theguy

Clare,

I apologize for my accusation about you being a liberal. I ask for forgiveness.

Please email me, if you will.

Reply to
Budd Cochran

clare, meet budd. budd, meet clare.

clare, will you be budd's friend?

Reply to
theguy

Yes, there are those who insist the Bible is a literal book and the universe really was created in 7 days and a woman really does have one less rib than a man, etc., etc., etc.. I don't know that those beliefs necessarily characterize "religion" as narrow and even offensive in nature.

On need not concentrate on religion alone for those type qualities.

They are *human* qualities and they can be found in modern science and certainly politics or nearly any other form of organized or semi-organized human endeavor.

We're working with flawed players here.

If Budd insists that the world was created in 7 days because the Bible says so, let him think it. He chooses to ignore the best evidence we have *at the moment*. His choice. If he calls you blasphemer for saying otherwise, chuckle and move on to the next thread. Don't interact with him on the subject if it gets you too annoyed or upset. Is it really worth it?

SMH

Reply to
Stephen Harding

While the literal 7 day time span seems rather incorrect given current evidence, the ordering of developments seems to be quite on target.

Even with current good evidence of Big Bang theory and the expanding universe, you still get back to "why was all the matter of the universe compressed in on infinitely small point of space time dense enough to cause the mother of all explosions?" "How'd it get that way?", etc, etc.

Science has a long way to go in outright disproving the existence of some sort of very powerful supreme being/beings.

SMH

Reply to
Stephen Harding

What's to prove? A thought is a thought. A manifestation of a cerebral state I suppose.

I wasn't arguing one can/can't prove of disprove a thought, "merely" the existence or non-existence of God.

The Scientific Method requires that one observe, formulate a hypothesis on why the observation occurred, and than attempt to

*disprove* the hypothesis. It's generally very difficult to outright prove a hypothesis, so disproving it is the preferred route.

Clearly, the existence, or lack thereof, of a God, is well outside the realm of the Scientific Method's service to us, at least for quite a time into the future.

Whoa, this is getting heavy now! Remember back in the old days when this group talked Dodge trucks? What simpletons we all were back then, huh?

SMH

Reply to
Stephen Harding

Welcome to hell, Clare.

:-) Craig C.

Reply to
Craig C.

I've seen Budds postings many times in the past. Just that I don't know him personally. As for intollerance? Budd would have to be EXTREMELY intollerant to be worse than a good number of the posters on this topic who are TOTALLY intollerant of the christian viewpoint.

Reply to
clare at snyder.on.ca

Budds posts in the past (like the last time he was here) are nowhere near as bad as they have become. Before blindly accusing others, you really should Google the past months posts from him. Look past the religious aspect of the posts and to his complete lack of concern or respect for anything but his own viewpoints and if anyone disagrees with him in any way, regardless of how polite they try to be, how bitter his responses are and his whining of how he is the one being picked on. IIRC, he called you a few names as well.

Reply to
TBone

Budd would have to be

You have to be unable or unwilling to read or you have become our latest troll.

As I suggested before use Google and become aware of what you are talking about. Right now you sound like a uninformed fool.

Reply to
Roy

examples?

Reply to
theguy

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.