- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,692
- Reaction score
- 3,368
- Location
- TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Not really, I see the left and it's tendency towards government control and their push towards "equal" results meaning actual being equal. They are the greater threat. But then, one does not try to fight a two front war if it is unnecessary. Also, at present, in my opinion, there is no unified right or a particular issue/trend, other than doing almost nothing, from those who are called the right. I am very much against corporatism also, just if given only the option of corporatism or socialism, I would chose corporatism. But my preference would be neither, and at present, the "right" are allies of convenience against the socialism of the left.
Why "particularly" this one group? Why are you so obsessed with homosexuality?
Why do you start another topic? You really must be obsessed with this.
What I supprt I have indicated reeatedly and clearly in this thread: That schools should teach cildren reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography, etc. - i.e. the skills they need - and that the teaching of morality is something that should be left to parents, family, friends, etc.
But they are not like "everyone" else. Pretty much no one is ever "like everyone else". We are individuals, each and every one of us. Funny how so many liberals want to "protect" homosexuals, but yet they fully support intolerance of others who don't accept their world view.
My daughter never had one of those student-parent handbooks where the parent had to sign and return or any other such nonsense. I expected the school to do just what businesses do, educate their people so they know what is and is not acceptable behavior. At work in the mid-90's we all had a classes on tolerance and that class was repeated every so often for new employees. That's what I expect children to learn at school, too.
Do you believe science does nothing to support atheism?
You can extrapolate certain reasonings from science that would conflict with religion, but the compartmentalized study of a discipline is not religious or atheistic. If your fear is that science itself is a threat to religion (I might be inclined to agree) then you have a completely different problem.
Are you suggesting that Sir Isaac Newton, who invented physics in 1665 was promoting and supporting atheism?
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?If your fear is that science itself is a threat to religion (I might be inclined to agree) then you have a completely different problem.
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?
You missed something. Science, itself, is crucial. Atheistic spin on science, is not. When you suggested that science could be a threat to religion, I submit that it was your inner atheist talking.Honestly not really. I thought the discussion was about teaching evolution and abiogenesis in schools unless I missed something.
I'm sure it's not nearly the same level as teen/20s STD levels. I'm pretty sure that is the highest age group for STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
Honestly not really. I thought the discussion was about teaching evolution and abiogenesis in schools unless I missed something.
You missed something. Science, itself, is crucial. Atheistic spin on science, is not. When you suggested that science could be a threat to religion, I submit that it was your inner atheist talking.
Yes, there's a unified Right. It's called "the Right." They may not have the numbers you like, but that doesn't equate to them not existing. True enough about the Right - they are essentially, the party that is against the Left - is that really a platform, though? That's not helping a situation.Come up with your own solution, not just denouncing the other guy's. Both parties, however, are useless, corrupt, and idiotic.
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?
Or justified concern:Nope. It seems like imagined hysterics.
The left is pretty much, despite their other differences, unified on using government to control society. Frankly, I can often agree with a lot of what they want to accomplish, I just don't agree with how (using the government to do it) they want to do it.
"Mandate to Evolve"? Shouldn't we get the License to Mutate first?
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?
It's an atheist's point of view that supports my argument.So what is this then?
Oh, you want to see more evidence:1 guy maybe doing something (if you take his word at face value)...not really some grand conspiracy as you'd lead us to believe.
It's strength in numbers, lola. Why are you trying to isolate incidences of atheism? The above article + Richard Dawkins + the other top 24 atheists + you and Ikara running interference + God knows what else I have to dig up = A growing problem.Do you honestly consider Richard Dawkins, who introduced the term meme, to be a threat to religion?
Evolution is a science. God is not part of the study of science. Why is this hard?
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?