LJ;1016101 wrote:Where did I say rights? and what rights of yours has religion infringed on? I too have a problem with the Catholic church hiding pedos, but that was a problem within the church, not religion itself.

LJ;1016116 wrote:thats just you being a cheap ass

ernest_t_bass;1016120 wrote:LOL. This thread started with, "Are you ready for Christmas."

ernest_t_bass;1016120 wrote:LOL. This thread started with, "Are you ready for Christmas."

tcarrier32;1016117 wrote:my apologies, i've been reading too much into sleepers posts. i was mainly focusing on your assumption that hardcore atheists are just as bad as hardcore christians (at whatever you may have been referring to).

actually it just reminded me of this comic



furthermore, my sister will not be allowed to marry within the state because of religious fears over gays being married. my personal rights do not have to be violated for me to voice displeasure. the simple fact that rights are being violated should be enough grounds for me to voice my displeasure. its even more telling that the amendment to the constitution was ratified in '04, not '54

LJ;1016133 wrote:Not all religious people are against it. Not all people that are against it are religious. Everyone is going to have opinions that affect others.

BTW
Militant atheist

tcarrier32;1016138 wrote:pardon my ignorance, but to what are you referring to? it looks like the church attacks associated with the black metal movement in Norway, usually associated with paganism or satanism (depending on which media outlet reported).

tcarrier32;1016068 wrote:lolwut. there is no faith in evolution, it is overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence. other areas of science i agree with you (even ****ing gravitational theory) but not this one. Alvin Plantiga (you know, the philosopher who made it possible for modern christian philosophers/academics to not get laughed out of their professions) acknowledges that evolution is true.

as for proving a supreme being is illogical? well the argument from evil (especially natural evil) does a damn good job of that. obviously there is much debate still, but lets not act like evolution is some fringe science lacking evidence.

gorocks99;1016105 wrote:Religion has influenced the fact that I can't see boobies at any time on cable TV. So, in conclusion, more boobs.

jmog;1016155 wrote:Actually decency standards of allowing CHILDREN to see boobs at any time on cable TV is what caused such laws.

jmog;1016155 wrote:Actually decency standards of allowing CHILDREN to see boobs at any time on cable TV is what caused such laws.

gorocks99;1016159 wrote:What are the decency standards based upon/influenced by?

I Wear Pants;1016160 wrote:Lol. Oh no, not boobs.

Europe has it right in this respect. Less violence, more boobs.

gorocks99;1016169 wrote:That's a platform we can believe in. Less violence, more tits.

jmog;1016164 wrote:Based on the average citizen in the US not wanting their children to have easy access to half naked women.

Right or wrong if you want it changed convince 51% of the citizens that it is perfectly decent for a woman to be topless.

LJ;1015871 wrote:Which is why it is stupid to use it as a point for or against another group.

jmog;1016150 wrote:Learn the definition of empirical evidence and get back to me.

As a scientist I love the fact that a lot of scientists use science so wrong. One of the first things you learn in grade school is that science is, by definition "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Notice the observation and experimentation part, that is all about observing and experimenting on things NOW. Not millions of years in the past or decades in the future.

Science is an AMAZING tool at explaning our universe as it is RIGHT NOW. Science has never been accurately used to predict the past or the future.

There is a reason that weather prediction is nearly impossible to be accurate past even a few days and even those few days are wrong many times.

The problem with explaning distant past or distant future is that scientists use CURRENT observations and ASSUME that things have not or will not change the rate of how these things happen. When in the scientific world we know that many things affect the rate at which things happen.

I'm sorry, but if you actually look at the probabilities involved in macro-evolution, ESPECIALLY with regards to the abiogenesis of the first bacterium, then you would realize that it most CERTAINLY takes a lot of FAITH to believe in evolution.

The average person just accepts it as fact because they have been told it was fact by someone they assumed was smarter than them. Sounds just like those that believe in Creation 6000 years ago ONLY because their Sunday School teacher told them so without researching it on their own.

jmog;1015989 wrote:The problem is that your "interpretation" doesn't line up with the facts/history of the "X".

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

I Wear Pants;1016180 wrote:When was this vote that established these standards?

sleeper;1016202 wrote:I don't care about facts,

jmog;1016229 wrote:You could have stopped there, because that about sums up most of your posts.

sleeper;1016247 wrote:Cool. I could sum up all your posts even quicker: Garbage.

sleeper;1016247 wrote:Cool. I could sum up all your posts even quicker: Garbage.