- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oh sure there are lots of "scientists" coming up with new theories all the time, just like religions do/have done. So we are in agreement that both are just belief systems.
Now that is progress.
Oh sure there are lots of "scientists" coming up with new theories all the time, just like religions do/have done. So we are in agreement that both are just belief systems.
Now that is progress.
Scientists test their theories and subject them to peer review before they are accepted as fact. The theories are usually based on and consistent with previously established knowledge. When new facts emerge, the theories change. Religionists generally hold onto their beliefs even when the evidence suggests that they are wrong.
Its pretty ignorant to compare religion to science especially since religion boasts that it is based on FAITH and not evidence.
Well, while I would agree that there really is no comparison, science to religion, on the origins question [ spoiler alert.......religion wins that one hands down ], the fact of the matter is, if you do not know but you still believe, and what you believe is certainly not based on any science, in other words, if you believe without basis, that is faith... so you have faith in science, but the science has no basis in science on the origins question... you really cannot get around that Chinese Wall, being no convenient worm holes to squirm into, to wiggle out of it, either.
Gives the top nod to religion, as they accept what they are doing as faith, while you folks promulgate your views with the imprimatur of science, as if it were proven or near proven... that is just disingenuous, which means the awareness when not telling the truth, but saying it as if it were true anyhow.
Ignorance is something completely different. Sounds like you have no idea of what you are talking about, and that would be a pretty significant leap in the direction of irony.
He is arguing from a conscious or subconscious agnostic point of view.Scientists test their theories and subject them to peer review before they are accepted as fact. The theories are usually based on and consistent with previously established knowledge. When new facts emerge, the theories change. Religionists generally hold onto their beliefs even when the evidence suggests that they are wrong.
Thanks... for not answering my questions, not possible, no provable answers exist...would have tried to clobber me with answers if in your possession... instead we have glaring, blinking neon absences, post after post laying out the dilemma for your side. For both sides, actually. However, mine understands that ours are beliefs, beliefs about what is a faith story , we admit it. So...
You asked me the correct reciprocal questions, though, which I also cannot answer...neither side can...
...proving my point precisely, yet better than me just explaining it alone, so thanks. Neither side has a corner on the answers to those...this being the impasse, the logjam, quandary leading ultimately to our current quagmire.
Now, this was either a eureka!! moment, with many lights, old news photog-like, exploding flash bulbs going off all over, bringing with them cascading insights...or was it more of the just ho-hummishness, a yeah yeah... ---'cause you already knew, just doing the obligatory hide job, best you could, long as you could?
Not that we'll ever get answers to those, either...
Ahhhh....Slanting more towards evening here, anything dawning over there, yet?
That's just it. The kids don't say they are dating at that age. That is your word.
.... ok man.... You can argue you implied nothing but its pretty obvious.
Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker After Gay Youth Policy Lifted Nationwide
How so very Christian of you Greg. Oh wait.
What.a.jerk.
So, once again, you have no answers, but insist that you're right :lamo
Incorrect. I don't claim to know the origins of life or the universe and I don't expect the answers will come in my lifetime. I am only familiar with the consensus theories of the scientists who research these topics. It is only a theory or guess, but it is an educated guess based on the empirical, verifiable evidence currently available. In comparison, religionists simply accpt the beliefs of other people who provide no evidence that their opinions are based on facts.
How so? His religion is stringently opposed to homosexual practices. It seems to me that he is simply doing what would be expected of him. And I should add, I would no longer allow a child in my care to participate in Scot activities out of my direct observation.
Have you ever read about life at British boarding schools in the early 20th Century? Where homosexual activity is tolerated, or worse ignored by adults who choose not to believe that such things are possible, small, submissive boys are used as playthings. Each step that ostensibly child centered organizations which participate in activities not closely and constantly monitored by the parents take towards this sort of tolerance will inevitably lead to such occurrences.
I have no children, sadly. But I have been associated with emergency medicine for many years. Based on those experiences alone, I think that this is a decision that people will rue. Or the Boy Scouts will have to give up the activities with which they are usually associated and become just another day care style urban activity.I've always associated Christianity with tolerance. Side note: I went to what I thought was one of the church's Facebook Pages and posted a polite protest to what they'd done. Within an hour or so, I had a response from the minister of that church who said something to the effect of, "Our church hasn't taken such a position on that matter. Although we think that homosexual is committing the same degree of six that a murderer or rapist is committing, we welcome sinners in our church. We don't turn sinners away."
As it turned out, there are two churches by the exact same name -- one in Alabama -- and the one I contacted in Virginia. Embarrassing.
However, that one line? "We don't turn sinners away - we welcome them in our church," that's how I picture Christianity. It's good to know that for the other gazzillion churches out there, it seems only two (that we know of) have taken the position you favor.
As to you and your child, hopefully you will become more tolerant and enlightened if and when you have to make the decision not to allow your son to participate as a youngster in scouting outside your direct observation. We cannot, and should not, raise our children in bubbles.
How so? His religion is stringently opposed to homosexual practices. It seems to me that he is simply doing what would be expected of him. And I should add, I would no longer allow a child in my care to participate in Scot activities out of my direct observation.
Have you ever read about life at British boarding schools in the early 20th Century? Where homosexual activity is tolerated, or worse ignored by adults who choose not to believe that such things are possible, small, submissive boys are used as playthings. Each step that ostensibly child centered organizations which participate in activities not closely and constantly monitored by the parents take towards this sort of tolerance will inevitably lead to such occurrences.
Some of them are using that word some of them aren't. It's not really the point what word they are using the point is they are showing an interest.That's just it. The kids don't say they are dating at that age. That is your word.
I wasn't kidding about the stories that came out of those British boarding schools.
As we, that follow such things, are all well aware regarding our past discussions---wrong, again.
With the current, you folks on that side have to be dragged kicking and screaming into understanding, or perhaps accepting, that your side has no proof either, so its just a simple belief system like everybody else's. That it requires this much effort just to get that side past this almost immovable inertia, which for some reason is considered still a superior stance somehow... well, they still put down horses for way less ...
....Have you ever read about life at British boarding schools in the early 20th Century? Where homosexual activity is tolerated, or worse ignored by adults who choose not to believe that such things are possible, small, submissive boys are used as playthings. Each step that ostensibly child centered organizations which participate in activities not closely and constantly monitored by the parents take towards this sort of tolerance will inevitably lead to such occurrences.
So you autmotacically equate all those things happening in the early 20th Centrury because of homosexuality? So all of a sudden you are worried about boys being used as "playthings" because the scouts have allowed gay boys into the scouts?
Homophobia is the IRRATIONAL fear of homosexuality and/or persons that are homosexual. I'd say you are definitely showing signs of that if you truly believe that. Many people are so ignorant to what it means to be a homosexual. I think you need some learning in that department if you believe what you say.
True, funny story. My very first sexual encounter was at a church. We were going to collect donation cuz we were poor. The Pastor and my mom went off somewhere and his daughter led me to the church bathrooms. We were maybe 5-7. She then stripped me nude and we had mock sex.Unsupervised teens and young people will fool around and/or have sex, often some of it non-consensual (molestation/rape). As with prison, that doesn't mean that the participants are gay or that gays are more likely to be rapists. Most child molesters were considered straight until they were caught. The problem is caused by bad supervision, not gays. All men, gay or straight, should be considered potentially abusive, which is why there should be more than one adult along for extended periods away from the view of others,such as camping trips.
You seem to think there's only two sides in this matter. I find that amusing.
I would also include peak oil
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?