Just saying, nothing in my religion encourages me to dismiss the problems this world faces, scientific and otherwise. In fact it encourages its adherents to engage in the struggle against them. I’m not sure how passing that down to a kid is a bad thing. This isn’t to say dogma can’t be dangerous, but it doesn’t need to be religious to make it so.
In mine, there’s…
No requirement to believe in the universe being a certain age
No requirement to dislike those who don’t believe
No requirement to vote one way or another
Still working on adopting the commandment to follow Emperor Penblade above all others, but we’re an argumentative bunch who will debate the wording of the value menu at McDonalds, let alone something as important as this.
Matt_W
3420
Well right, that’s the point. If science didn’t work–in other words if the universe was chaotic and it was impossible to form theories that match data sets–we couldn’t use it as a way of obtaining knowledge. Religion would be as valid as any other way of gaining knowledge–that is to say, equally useless. What makes naturalism powerful is that it works. The universe seems to evolve according to patterns that are deducible. Any conjecture about the nature of gods ends up being either blasphemy, tautological, or just obviously incorrect once it encounters reality.
Oh totally. People either compartmentalize or perform mental gymnastics to reconcile the contradictions, neither of which are intellectually rigorous. I mean, that’s fine. I evolved from evangelical YEC to liberal Catholicism to Teilhardian deism to atheism over the span of a decade or so. Religion can be a great source of comfort and community. It can form the impetus for overwhelming acts of generosity and compassion. But, I never felt like I was being honest with myself until I admitted that I’m an atheist. And, you know, I know generous and compassionate atheists (and adherents of non-Christian religions) too. And I know heartless and cruel Christians.
Of course, because Christianity is inherently cruel, e.g., the concept of “sin.”
In this thread because it isn’t ‘neonazi’ or ‘alt-right’ - just Republican.
Meaning South Dakota state Rep. Michael Clark. On Monday, Clark, being presumably of sound mind and body, suggested on Facebook that maybe racial segregation wouldn’t be such a bad idea. A businessman, he wrote, “should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, that’s his choice.”
Naturally, he apologized the next day. But what were we supposed to do with that? This was not a poor choice of words or an ill-considered thought. You do not “oops” segregation, as Clark himself tacitly acknowledged in describing his remarks as “very racist.” Well, yes, they were. And?
But there was no “and.” One was left with a sense of a mask slipping loose. Or maybe a hood being removed.
MikeJ
3423
I didn’t describe a universe that was completely chaotic. I described a universe much like our own, where science can tell you how to make a steam engine or a rocket, or a cell phone, except that in this universe the saying “science can’t explain everything” is very obviously true about the measurable world. The world mostly follows physical laws but in a few cases (e.g. origin of the earth, functioning of the brain) there are inexplicable departures or miracles. If I lived in that world and a religious book predicted exactly where scientists were going to find those miracles (centuries later), then I think both science and religion would be very valid sources of knowledge.
Of course, that’s not the way it worked out, so I don’t feel the need to include supernatural elements in my explanation of the mind, for instance.
He said as he bravely washed his hands of the whole thing and with great conviction got off the stage…
Nothing says moral bankruptcy quite like nominating a pimp…
I’ve been trying to decide between that being hilarious-sad vs just hilarious. I’m leaning toward just plain hilarious.
I presume all the easy “screwing the people” jokes have already been made.
rowe33
3429
Well the GOP nominated a pedophile, there’s really nothing they wouldn’t do at this point.
Technically they didn’t know it at the time (in Roy Moore’s case).
CraigM
3432
Hey, it’s a legitimate profession there. As long as he treats his employees fairly, I don’t care.
Now being on the GOP ticket is hilarious, and if he isn’t laughed out of the debate the first time he says family values or traditional marriage, I’ll be disappointed.
Ron Howard: “He was disappointed.”
KevinC
3434
It was clear from Cathouse that he really fucks over his employees, ifyaknowwhatimean.
rowe33
3435
Over…under…from the side…whatever it takes.
Oghier
3437
Yeah, Steve King doesn’t “support” white nationalists. He is a white nationalist. He won’t wear the armband in public until Trump’s third term, though.
