Iran tests new version of balistic missile

[strummingram]

I know what Jews believe Sturm. And Jesus may be a prophet of Islam according to Islam but not according to God's Word. Maybe you should read it sometime.

You mean the stuff people wrote down that claim God told them was God's word? Believe me, I'm reading them as fast as I can.

EVERYTHING is "God's Word." God's "word" is not limited to the covers of the Bible that Christians read. I know your religion taught you that, and that's fine. But, not everyone restricts God's word to that. God's word is coming through 24/7 to all of us, all the time.

Do you somehow think God is different for people who believe in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, or any other group? I know it's next-to-impossible for you to believe, but, God is the same for all of them and all of us.

 

[strummingram]

I know what Jews believe Sturm.

You do? You didn't know that Muslims believe Jesus was the Messenger of God and a prophet. Why should I think you know what Jews believe. I've never met 2 different Christians that believed exactly the same. Saying you know what all Jews believe is unbelievable to me!

 

[uncboy10]

Well I step away for like an hour and strum has already taken out the trash. cool

 

[uncboy10]

Wow. Dude you really do need some help. You are reading some funky stuff if you actually believe Jesus is a prophet of Islam. That is pitiful.

This is an all-timer right here.

 

[keysersosay#1]

Perhaps I should start another thread on the Iran deal, and the mockery Iran/ Russia are making of it, since this one is so far off on another tangent.

 

[gunslingerdick]

But that isn't the discussion that's being had in public schools. I can't think of a single instance where I've heard of someone trying to deny Christians or Muslims or anyone else for that matter the right to assemble after school, or during lunch or any other free period of the day. The discussion that has been infiltrating our science classrooms, is whether or not creationism should be taught in schools. As of right now in many places, creationism is placed on equal footing with evolution and that is simply absurd. Biology teachers shouldn't have to constantly stress that evolution is "just a theory" any more than a physics teacher should for gravity.

That's not happening with the frequency in which you make it out to be. But for argument's sake, let's assume it is. If that's what the majority of people want, then why is it a problem? Shouldn't we cater to what the majority of a particular community wants? Or maybe it's better to ask, why don't we factor in what a majority wants? Why are we so quick to bend over for the minority all the while flipping the bird to the majority? Doesn't that seem backwards to you?

Like I said, it doesn't impact me directly because I took my kids out of the horrible public education system. The benefits to private school are endless. #gunslingerdickprivilege

 

[coryfly]

That's not happening with the frequency in which you make it out to be. But for argument's sake, let's assume it is. If that's what the majority of people want, then why is it a problem? Shouldn't we cater to what the majority of a particular community wants? Or maybe it's better to ask, why don't we factor in what a majority wants? Why are we so quick to bend over for the minority all the while flipping the bird to the majority? Doesn't that seem backwards to you?

Like I said, it doesn't impact me directly because I took my kids out of the horrible public education system. The benefits to private school are endless. #gunslingerdickprivilege

I don't think we can pander simply to the majority. That sort of goes against some of the tenets we stand for here in America. It is easy to think that way when what one believes is generally the majority. Private schools are great. They aren't usually great because of the school though. They are great because of the specific kids who go there. An average teacher can get more done in that setting than a great teacher can in the public system dealing with the kids they have to deal with. It is one of the main reasons the more we go to private or charter schools the less effective they will become.

As for evolution...no one denies things evolve and evolve greatly. However, the idea that it is a fact that we evolved from molecules 4 billion years ago is not something the evolution people I know are silly enough to claim as fact. Thus, it is a theory.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I don't think we can pander simply to the majority. That sort of goes against some of the tenets we stand for here in America. It is easy to think that way when what one believes is generally the majority.

I don't disagree. But the way things are now, it appears no one is happy. At least with what I'm suggesting, the majority would be happy. Does that not make sense?

Private schools are great. They aren't usually great because of the school though. They are great because of the specific kids who go there. An average teacher can get more done in that setting than a great teacher can in the public system dealing with the kids they have to deal with. It is one of the main reasons the more we go to private or charter schools the less effective they will become.

I agree again. But why are things like that in public school? Because we have allowed those things to occur. We've lowered the standards because the standards that we had in place were supposedly racially biased. It's nonsensical. People need to suffer consequences. Don't lower the standards for a poor black kid just so he'll pass. Keep the standards where they are and if the kid fails, the kid fails. Maybe that would light a fire under the family. If it doesn't, why should other kids' educational experience be effected by the minority of students that aren't willing to learn? Again, we bend over to appease the bottom of the barrel while we say "fu*k you" to those that are interested. It's as backwards a thought process as I've ever seen. Liberals would rather bring the ceiling down so that there's less of a gap between the top and the bottom. That is some evil shit. And it completely kills motivation in life. And it straight up pisses people off. I can't for the life of me understand it. I know it sounds cruel, but at some point we're going to be forced to just say, "to hell with those that aren't interested." In other words, we might have to forsake the few for the benefit of the majority. But the longer we wait to make that decision, the few grow to a larger number.

But whatever. It's not going to happen. So I'll just do what I need to do to keep my family and life as far away from that shit as possible. That's my only recourse at this point.

 

[coryfly]

I don't disagree. But the way things are now, it appears no one is happy. At least with what I'm suggesting, the majority would be happy. Does that not make sense?



I agree again. But why are things like that in public school? Because we have allowed those things to occur. We've lowered the standards because the standards that we had in place were supposedly racially biased. It's nonsensical. People need to suffer consequences. Don't lower the standards for a poor black kid just so he'll pass. Keep the standards where they are and if the kid fails, the kid fails. Maybe that would light a fire under the family. If it doesn't, why should other kids' educational experience be effected by the minority of students that aren't willing to learn? Again, we bend over to appease the bottom of the barrel while we say "fu*k you" to those that are interested. It's as backwards a thought process as I've ever seen. Liberals would rather bring the ceiling down so that there's less of a gap between the top and the bottom. That is some evil shit. And it completely kills motivation in life. And it straight up pisses people off. I can't for the life of me understand it. I know it sounds cruel, but at some point we're going to be forced to just say, "to hell with those that aren't interested." In other words, we might have to forsake the few for the benefit of the majority. But the longer we wait to make that decision, the few grow to a larger number.

But whatever. It's not going to happen. So I'll just do what I need to do to keep my family and life as far away from that shit as possible. That's my only recourse at this point.

I don't think the standards are lower. If anything, they are higher...much higher actually. I'm not saying social promotion doesn't take place because it does but it isn't because the standards are lower. It is primarily because of the NCLB mandates and other mandates that punish schools unless you have a certain amount of kids that don't get promoted. I mean, what would you do?? You can be punished because a bunch of idiot politicians pass legislature when they don't know a damn thing about education or you can promote kids who aren't ready.

Regardless, the ceiling isn't what educators want to bring down. The floor is what we want to bring up to decrease the gaps. The discussion is never to only focus on the lower groups. It is to find ways to focus on all the groups. Missing with the high to high average kids hurts just as much as missing with the lower groups.

It certainly isn't just for the poor black kid either. It is the poor kid in general, whether they be white, black, or whatever. It is the kid with parents who aren't interested, unwilling, or unable to give a crap. It is a socioeconomic issue. Until we figure out a way (by policy or whatever) to raise up and educate our poorest communities then the system will continue to struggle. We compete very well statistically with the world with every subgroup except for our lowest socioeconomic groups and those groups are so large they impact how our overall numbers look comparatively.

It is crazy how difficult the curriculum is in public schools now. In the good districts it works because the teachers are teaching all the levels (level of kid, differentiating, grouping, etc..) where they are at and each child is growing each year. I know that there are probably some bad districts out there though. The standards and difficulty of what is being taught has gone up considerably while the apathy of parents, the family structure, socioeconomic groups, standard of living, etc... has remained static or decreased. Teachers are busting their tails and doing a good job overall but they can only do so much. Anyway, it isn't like this is something you don't know. This is why private schools work, because the parents all give a crap and the numbers are low and they can absolutely control the curriculum and actually alter the standards if necessary (though I would imagine it seldom is with all the advantages they have). Again, if we want to start punishing and phasing out public schools all these advantages go away, which is what many on the right are going to continue to push (even though in truth they probably don't even want it).

 

[gunslingerdick]

I don't think the standards are lower. If anything, they are higher...much higher actually. I'm not saying social promotion doesn't take place because it does but it isn't because the standards are lower. It is primarily because of the NCLB mandates and other mandates that punish schools unless you have a certain amount of kids that don't get promoted. I mean, what would you do?? You can be punished because a bunch of idiot politicians pass legislature when they don't know a damn thing about education or you can promote kids who aren't ready.

Regardless, the ceiling isn't what educators want to bring down. The floor is what we want to bring up to decrease the gaps. The discussion is never to only focus on the lower groups. It is to find ways to focus on all the groups. Missing with the high to high average kids hurts just as much as missing with the lower groups.

You can't be serious. Raising standards? No fu*king way that's happening. Liberals absolutely want to lower the ceiling so that the poor disadvantaged kid doesn't feel so bad about himself when he sees others around him succeeding and he's not. That is absolutely what is happening.

It certainly isn't just for the poor black kid either. It is the poor kid in general, whether they be white, black, or whatever. It is the kid with parents who aren't interested, unwilling, or unable to give a crap. It is a socioeconomic issue. Until we figure out a way (by policy or whatever) to raise up and educate our poorest communities then the system will continue to struggle. We compete very well statistically with the world with every subgroup except for our lowest socioeconomic groups and those groups are so large they impact how our overall numbers look comparatively.

Don't get me started here. I hate public education so much I don't think it should exist. At least not how it's structured. I'm against school buses. For many reasons (unsafe, inefficient, bad for the environment, staffed by the dregs of society). But one of those reasons is that if you want an education, you'll get your ass to school. At my organization, I do not go to clients' homes to provide services. I need to see some initiative. They come to my office. Because if they're not willing to do everything in their power to get here to get the free services we're providing, then I'll spend my time on those that are. That's just the way it is. Granted, there are outliers (disabled, etc). But even then, you have perfectly abled bodies manipulating the system. That's what people do. Let's talk about it in real terms. Let's stop being afraid to highlight the real problem - certain populations are expecting the govt to educate their kids and for them to have no involvement whatsoever. Oh yeah, and we're also expected to feed those kids whose parents don't give one shit what kind of education they're getting. But all that wouldn't bother me if it wasn't creating problems for those that do give a shit.

 

[coryfly]

You can't be serious. Raising standards? No fu*king way that's happening. Liberals absolutely want to lower the ceiling so that the poor disadvantaged kid doesn't feel so bad about himself when he sees others around him succeeding and he's not. That is absolutely what is happening.




Don't get me started here. I hate public education so much I don't think it should exist. At least not how it's structured. I'm against school buses. For many reasons (unsafe, inefficient, bad for the environment, staffed by the dregs of society). But one of those reasons is that if you want an education, you'll get your ass to school. At my organization, I do not go to clients' homes to provide services. I need to see some initiative. They come to my office. Because if they're not willing to do everything in their power to get here to get the free services we're providing, then I'll spend my time on those that are. That's just the way it is. Granted, there are outliers (disabled, etc). But even then, you have perfectly abled bodies manipulating the system. That's what people do. Let's talk about it in real terms. Let's stop being afraid to highlight the real problem - certain populations are expecting the govt to educate their kids and for them to have no involvement whatsoever. Oh yeah, and we're also expected to feed those kids whose parents don't give one shit what kind of education they're getting. But all that wouldn't bother me if it wasn't creating problems for those that do give a shit.

The standards are higher. You are just wrong. They are so much higher it is ridiculous you are even making this argument. I should know since our students have to live up to them every day. This ceiling you are talking about is expected to increase along with the floor. That is the way it is, period. The social promotion you reference is based on the Republicans pushing mandates to punish schools for poor percentages.

You want to punish the kids for their parents. That sort of mindset is ridiculous. Since the parents don't care we shouldn't educate the kids? Do you really believe that? The ones who do give a damn aren't being hurt. They are being taught at their level, enriched, etc... Believe it or not, there are plenty of poor black kids who give a damn as well, along with their parents. The idea that we want to educate everyone is one of the things that makes America what it is. I have a hard time coming to terms with anyone with the mindset that should cease to exist.

So what would we have if we didn't have public schools? What is the alternative?

 

[gunslingerdick]

The standards are higher. You are just wrong. They are so much higher it is ridiculous you are even making this argument. I should know since our students have to live up to them every day. This ceiling you are talking about is expected to increase along with the floor. That is the way it is, period. The social promotion you reference is based on the Republicans pushing mandates to punish schools for poor percentages.

You want to punish the kids for their parents. That sort of mindset is ridiculous. Since the parents don't care we shouldn't educate the kids? Do you really believe that? The ones who do give a damn aren't being hurt. They are being taught at their level, enriched, etc... Believe it or not, there are plenty of poor black kids who give a damn as well, along with their parents. The idea that we want to educate everyone is one of the things that makes America what it is. I have a hard time coming to terms with anyone with the mindset that should cease to exist.

So what would we have if we didn't have public schools? What is the alternative?

To your first point, Tennessee and Virginia must be at opposite ends of the spectrum. Because I know what I see here.

To your second point, fine, have public education. If a kid doesn't make it to school, then oh well. That kid doesn't get an education. Stop forcing education. Stop with truancy laws. Stop directing resources towards those that don't give a shit. We must see some initiative on the part of the participant. If not, then you are spoonfeeding. And when you do that, you set someone up to expect to be spoonfed for the rest of their life. And then they grow up to be deadbeat parents that take no interest in their kids' education. Spend your time on those that care. And bring back a focus on vocational training. Academics just aren't for everyone.

 

[coryfly]

To your first point, Tennessee and Virginia must be at opposite ends of the spectrum. Because I know what I see here.

To your second point, fine, have public education. If a kid doesn't make it to school, then oh well. That kid doesn't get an education. Stop forcing education. Stop with truancy laws. Stop directing resources towards those that don't give a shit. We must see some initiative on the part of the participant. If not, then you are spoonfeeding. And when you do that, you set someone up to expect to be spoonfed for the rest of their life. And then they grow up to be deadbeat parents that take no interest in their kids' education. Spend your time on those that care. And bring back a focus on vocational training. Academics just aren't for everyone.

Possibly. Tennessee is definitely a pretty progressive state when it comes to education. I know our district certainly is.

I get the frustration there but again, you are punishing the kid for the sins of the parent. How does that help our problem? Some of these kids in these crappy situations end up doing something because of some teacher who gave a damn about them. I know this. I've lived it. It means something to me. I understand the numbers argument. I get that. I also am huge on vocational training, especially in high school. However, I would at least like to introduce it before that. Kids have to go to school though. If not, there is no chance for them. At least there is some chance with it.

I completely agree academics are not for everyone, which is one reason I really hate this lottery nonsense we do here where every kids gets a scholarship. It is just wasted money. Earn one like I did.

 

[uncboy10]

That's not happening with the frequency in which you make it out to be. But for argument's sake, let's assume it is. If that's what the majority of people want, then why is it a problem? Shouldn't we cater to what the majority of a particular community wants? Or maybe it's better to ask, why don't we factor in what a majority wants? Why are we so quick to bend over for the minority all the while flipping the bird to the majority? Doesn't that seem backwards to you?

Like I said, it doesn't impact me directly because I took my kids out of the horrible public education system. The benefits to private school are endless. #gunslingerdickprivilege

There are places where its okay to pander to the majority opinion. Not many places but some. The science classroom is not one of them. Science is in no way dependent on majority.

 

[UNC71-00]

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/547/

I'm sure a Harvard educated reporter for The NY Times and WaPo is going to do everything possible to portray Reagan in a positive way, right?

 

[uncboy10]

I'm sure a Harvard educated reporter for The NY Times and WaPo is going to do everything possible to portray Reagan in a positive way, right?

Which allegations are you trying to dispute? The human rights violations committed by the contras and by Iran in the late eighties are very well documented.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

There are places where its okay to pander to the majority opinion. Not many places but some. The science classroom is not one of them. Science is in no way dependent on majority.

Oh, so Climate Change actually isn't settled science, as you claim the majority of scientists believe to be caused human activities. There is a significant minority of scientists that dispute belief. Sooooooo, we all know you full of it when you use the "Climate change is settled science" meme to attack conservatives as anti-science because we don't buy into the majority belief on Climate change...

 

[uncboy10]

Oh, so Climate Change actually isn't settled science, as you claim the majority of scientists believe to be caused human activities. There is a significant minority of scientists that dispute belief. Sooooooo, we all know you full of it when you use the "Climate change is settled science" meme to attack conservatives as anti-science because we don't buy into the majority belief on Climate change...

Nothing in science is ever settled. Further experiments can always be conducted. But there is an astoundingly huge body of evidence that suggests that human activity is causing climate change. There is also an astoundingly huge body of evidence that this new age creationism malarkey is a load of horse crap. You can choose to ignore that evidence if you want, be my guest. Nobody is attacking conservatives for holding a minority opinion, we attack you because you hold an opinion that directly contradicts the evidence.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Nothing in science is ever settled. Further experiments can always be conducted. But there is an astoundingly huge body of evidence that suggests that human activity is causing climate change. There is also an astoundingly huge body of evidence that this new age creationism malarkey is a load of horse crap. You can choose to ignore that evidence if you want, be my guest. Nobody is attacking conservatives for holding a minority opinion, we attack you because you hold an opinion that directly contradicts the evidence.

But, like you said, nothing in science is ever settled, and a significant minority of scientists disagree with the prevailing theory of climate change. But, you change the subject to something completely unrelated that you haven't been able to adequately address - the issue of origins - as 71 and I have repeatedly asked you about. All you give is BS about everything but the actual question. So, as I have said repeatedly - you need to freakin' grow up and learn to have a conversation without insulting those who may disagree with you. You've insulted people with whom you disagree since your very first posts on this message board and continue to do so.

 

[keysersosay#1]

Man Made global warming er climate change er climate chaos er climate disruption.....whatever the latest BS title that the Left puts on it is the GREATEST single hoax in human history. It has NEVER EVER been about "science" It has ALWAYS been about politics and the Lefts desire to cripple America in particular.

The sad sad sight of an entire generation of brain washed, dumbed down kids, who have been indoctrinated with this left wing trash their entire lives, is proof positive that if you tells lies to the masses over and over, people believe it.

 

[UNC71-00]

Man Made global warming er climate change er climate chaos er climate disruption.....whatever the latest BS title that the Left puts on it is the GREATEST single hoax in human history. It has NEVER EVER been about "science" It has ALWAYS been about politics and the Lefts desire to cripple America in particular.

The sad sad sight of an entire generation of brain washed, dumbed down kids, who have been indoctrinated with this left wing trash their entire lives, is proof positive that if you tells lies to the masses over and over, people believe it.

Kids of every generation have acted like this generation. The teens and early twenties crowd will always think left wing, progressive policies make sense and that the way to peace is to tell your adversary that we mean them no harm.

The difference these days is that the younger generation has replaced God with Global Warming as their belief in a higher power.

 

[uncboy10]

We know as well as we know anything what the effects of greenhouse gasses are on our atmosphere. Has the issue been politicized? Hell yes. You wont hear hardly any climate experts talking about the factory farming industry, which produces more harmful greenhouse gases than all the transportation industries in the world combined. Anyone who believes this is a hoax should probably take off the tin foil and read some actual objective research instead of taking the word of politicians who are in the pockets of the Koch Brothers. I find it amusing that someone would complain about this issue being politicized, then would side with the opinion of a political party instead of the consensus opinion of SCIENTISTS (these guys aren't seeking reelection FYI)...

As far as the minority of scientists, just look at where their funding comes from and the picture becomes a lot clearer. But we need a minority of scientists trying to disprove climate change as a man made phenomenon. That will only strengthen the science.

With regards to brainwashing, you have to be kidding me. People have proven they can be convinced that people walk on water, and come back from the dead, just because a really old book said so. But were the brainwashed idiots... Right.

Nuk, you're still making the god of the gaps argument. I cannot explain the origins of life. Nobody can. Which is exactly my point. I'm not making a positive claim about the origins of life nor the universe. I'm just rejecting your claim on the basis that it has no evidence to support it, and in fact there is a significant amount of evidence that the Biblical account of the origins of the universe is a work of fiction. The rules of logic dictate that I don't have to have a replacement theory just to refute yours.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

We know as well as we know anything what the effects of greenhouse gasses are on our atmosphere. Has the issue been politicized? Hell yes. You wont hear hardly any climate experts talking about the factory farming industry, which produces more harmful greenhouse gases than all the transportation industries in the world combined. Anyone who believes this is a hoax should probably take off the tin foil and read some actual objective research instead of taking the word of politicians who are in the pockets of the Koch Brothers. I find it amusing that someone would complain about this issue being politicized, then would side with the opinion of a political party instead of the consensus opinion of SCIENTISTS (these guys aren't seeking reelection FYI)...

As far as the minority of scientists, just look at where their funding comes from and the picture becomes a lot clearer. But we need a minority of scientists trying to disprove climate change as a man made phenomenon. That will only strengthen the science.

With regards to brainwashing, you have to be kidding me. People have proven they can be convinced that people walk on water, and come back from the dead, just because a really old book said so. But were the brainwashed idiots... Right.

Nuk, you're still making the god of the gaps argument. I cannot explain the origins of life. Nobody can. Which is exactly my point. I'm not making a positive claim about the origins of life nor the universe. I'm just rejecting your claim on the basis that it has no evidence to support it, and in fact there is a significant amount of evidence that the Biblical account of the origins of the universe is a work of fiction. The rules of logic dictate that I don't have to have a replacement theory just to refute yours.

As far as the majority scientists, just look where their funding comes from...

And, global warming stopped in the mid-1990s; When that was pointed out, the argument shifted to some nebulous "climate change" - which has been occurring continuously for billions of years since creation, as has been pointed out multiple times.

And, if you peel back the veil of your atheist religion, you would see that the basic chronology of events from the Big Bang to human life is generally put forth in Genesis - I actually believe that process took billions of years.

There is no way that ancient man would have understood the scientific details of the building blocks of life (DNA) and evolution as we do today, although you claim we have no such understanding because the "science isn't settled"... I believe this information was withheld by God because He knew we needed more time to absorb the details.

Renowned scientist Wernher von Braun, father of the US space program had this simple inscription on his tombstone - Psalm 19:1. Not all scientists are atheists. In fact, many believe in God. Do you have the same disdain for them as you have for other believers?

 

[uncboy10]

As far as the majority scientists, just look where their funding comes from...

And, global warming stopped in the mid-1990s; When that was pointed out, the argument shifted to some nebulous "climate change" - which has been occurring continuously for billions of years since creation, as has been pointed out multiple times.

And, if you peel back the veil of your atheist religion, you would see that the basic chronology of events from the Big Bang to human life is generally put forth in Genesis - I actually believe that process took billions of years.

There is no way that ancient man would have understood the scientific details of the building blocks of life (DNA) and evolution as we do today, although you claim we have no such understanding because the "science isn't settled"... I believe this information was withheld by God because He knew we needed more time to absorb the details.

Renowned scientist Wernher von Braun, father of the US space program had this simple inscription on his tombstone - Psalm 19:1. Not all scientists are atheists. In fact, many believe in God. Do you have the same disdain for them as you have for other believers?

Science is never settled, and saying "we have no such understanding" are two completely different statements. No matter how well established, a theory can always be further tested. Did god also withhold a condemnation of slavery because we couldn't understand that? He didn't have a problem with denouncing coveting, but didn't bother to throw anything about rape or slavery in his ten most important rules. Seems to me like your god has his priorities out of whack... But then again the Bible openly endorses slavery, so I wouldn't expect there to be a rule against it.

Genesis puts forward a very cut and dry explanation for the origins of the universe. 7 days of creation. But then again the people who wrote the Bible also didn't know what germs were so its probably best to treat it as a work of fiction best interpreted metaphorically. But no matter how many absurdities and contradictions you point out, people like you will just close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears...

Science would be a lot farther along if it didn't have to be met with opposition by the church at every possible opportunity. Humanity would be infinitely better of without religion. Just look at the ME. That's the most religious region of the entire world. The only people who want to acquire a nuclear weapon for the purpose of actually using it are the parties of god who feel that bringing on the apocalypse would be a good thing. You can't have thinking that irrational without religion. Period.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Science is never settled, and saying "we have no such understanding" are two completely different statements. No matter how well established, a theory can always be further tested. Did god also withhold a condemnation of slavery because we couldn't understand that? He didn't have a problem with denouncing coveting, but didn't bother to throw anything about rape or slavery in his ten most important rules. Seems to me like your god has his priorities out of whack... But then again the Bible openly endorses slavery, so I wouldn't expect there to be a rule against it.

Genesis puts forward a very cut and dry explanation for the origins of the universe. 7 days of creation. But then again the people who wrote the Bible also didn't know what germs were so its probably best to treat it as a work of fiction best interpreted metaphorically. But no matter how many absurdities and contradictions you point out, people like you will just close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears...

Science would be a lot farther along if it didn't have to be met with opposition by the church at every possible opportunity. Humanity would be infinitely better of without religion. Just look at the ME. That's the most religious region of the entire world. The only people who want to acquire a nuclear weapon for the purpose of actually using it are the parties of god who feel that bringing on the apocalypse would be a good thing. You can't have thinking that irrational without religion. Period.

You are a very sad case of strong delusion.

 

[uncboy10]

You are a very sad case of strong delusion.

Still resorting to ad hominem... Do better.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Blaming war on religion is like blaming marriage for domestic violence. People use religion as an excuse to justify their war and sell it to the masses but 1000percent of the time its about power. And what gives u power? Land and the riches therein. Take away all religous beliefs and there would still be war.

 

[heelmanwilm]

But i do agree that religous fundamentalism has resulted in atrocious denials of scientific discoveries and has held back many advances that would helped and educated humanity

 

[uncboy10]

Blaming war on religion is like blaming marriage for domestic violence. People use religion as an excuse to justify their war and sell it to the masses but 1000percent of the time its about power. And what gives u power? Land and the riches therein. Take away all religous beliefs and there would still be war.

Probably true. But religion, and nationalism are still the two easiest ways to rile up a population to convince them to go to war.

 

[gunslingerdick]

We know as well as we know anything what the effects of greenhouse gasses are on our atmosphere. Has the issue been politicized? Hell yes. You wont hear hardly any climate experts talking about the factory farming industry, which produces more harmful greenhouse gases than all the transportation industries in the world combined. Anyone who believes this is a hoax should probably take off the tin foil and read some actual objective research instead of taking the word of politicians who are in the pockets of the Koch Brothers. I find it amusing that someone would complain about this issue being politicized, then would side with the opinion of a political party instead of the consensus opinion of SCIENTISTS (these guys aren't seeking reelection FYI)...

As far as the minority of scientists, just look at where their funding comes from and the picture becomes a lot clearer. But we need a minority of scientists trying to disprove climate change as a man made phenomenon. That will only strengthen the science.

With regards to brainwashing, you have to be kidding me. People have proven they can be convinced that people walk on water, and come back from the dead, just because a really old book said so. But were the brainwashed idiots... Right.

1 - I like science. I really liked it when we did those experiments in elementary school where you make a volcano. Those were cool.
2 - I believe the earth is warming. And I believe that man is causing it to do so at a more rapid rate than if man didn't exist. I'm just not worked up about it.
3 - The bible is where fact and fiction meet. After all, faith is belief in the absence of proof. I don't take anything in the bible literally. But it's a road map, a guide if you will, to the right way of living. You're supposed to read between the lines. For such an enlightened intellectual, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that. Or either you're purposely trying not to.

 

[uncboy10]

1 - I like science. I really liked it when we did those experiments in elementary school where you make a volcano. Those were cool.
2 - I believe the earth is warming. And I believe that man is causing it to do so at a more rapid rate than if man didn't exist. I'm just not worked up about it.
3 - The bible is where fact and fiction meet. After all, faith is belief in the absence of proof. I don't take anything in the bible literally. But it's a road map, a guide if you will, to the right way of living. You're supposed to read between the lines. For such an enlightened intellectual, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that. Or either you're purposely trying not to.

I do understand that. My problem is that too many theists don't understand your third point.

Its the whole literal word of god thing that creates problems. Quite a lot of theists still believe the Bible (or whatever codified religious doctrine they worship) was literally written by god. So when they find a morally questionable doctrine within it, they take it at face value and don't question. These same people tend to be completely ignorant of the fact that their belief is in fact a subjective faith based one.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Its the whole literal word of god thing that creates problems. Quite a lot of theists still believe the Bible (or whatever codified religious doctrine they worship) was literally written by god. .

I've never known someone to believe that the bible was written by God himself. I mean, what kind of pen did he use? Typewriter? Or did he just immaculately make the words appear on paper?

These same people tend to be completely ignorant of the fact that their belief is in fact a subjective faith based one.

Most every belief is subjective. And again, that's what faith is. Do you understand what faith is? It means there is no proof. And you're underrating it. The Christian faith has provided the morals that have built and govern a large part of civilization. If I ask you where you learned right from wrong, you'll say your parents. And they probably learned it from their parents. And so on and so on. But if you trace that lineage back, you're going to find that initially, people subscribed to certain beliefs (what's right and wrong) because of the Christian faith. So essentially, the way many (most) of us have learned to be/live,/do, is because of the Christian faith. Yet all you want to do is pick it apart for its deficiencies.

 

[uncboy10]

I've never known someone to believe that the bible was written by God himself. I mean, what kind of pen did he use? Typewriter? Or did he just immaculately make the words appear on paper?



Most every belief is subjective. And again, that's what faith is. Do you understand what faith is? It means there is no proof. And you're underrating it. The Christian faith has provided the morals that have built and govern a large part of civilization. If I ask you where you learned right from wrong, you'll say your parents. And they probably learned it from their parents. And so on and so on. But if you trace that lineage back, you're going to find that initially, people subscribed to certain beliefs (what's right and wrong) because of the Christian faith. So essentially, the way many (most) of us have learned to be/live,/do, is because of the Christian faith. Yet all you want to do is pick it apart for its deficiencies.

I know quite a lot of fundamentalist who believe the Bible is infallible.

And we had social solidarity long before we had religion. Without the ability to coexist we wouldn't have made it very far. Christian faith isn't responsible for humanistic morality. You can find those same doctrines in basically any ideology that addresses morality. There isn't any code of law or religious doctrine that says we SHOULD steal, or murder or rape. So while your giving all the credit to Christianity for the good it has done, I'm saying we can do better. Sure, there are definitely sound moral doctrines within Christianity, just like there are sound moral doctrines in Islam, Buddhism, and Hinudism. But why not divorce ourselves from the noxious ideas? Because when you use divine authority to justify the sound moral doctrines, you shoot yourself in the foot with the not so sound doctrines.