1 - 10 Next
Classic liberal "science": How do I know? Because the experts all say so. What's the evidence? I just told you: All the experts say so! What makes these people experts? The reporter called them experts, and they work for organizations dedicated to this issue. What about experts who say the opposite? They don't count -- they've proven they're unqualified by the fact that they don't agree with the real experts. But people who disagree also work for organizations devoted to this issue. You see, that proves their biased! Etc.
Can you give some examples? If not, you're just repeating the same "the proof I that everyone knows its true, so I don't need to give any actual evidence"
In response to:

Things to Think About

mjohansen Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 4:39 PM
Hey, if it wasn't for politicians asking for money, the only Christmas card I'd get would be the one from my mother. Talking to fund-raisers seems to be my primary social interaction these days.
In response to:

Aiming High

mjohansen Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 4:32 PM
"This is not a high-tech, expensive program." Most good education isn't. I develop web applications for a living -- I certainly have nothing against technology. But many educators these days seem to have the idea that if they just throw the latest gadgets at the students, education will magically happen. Often these things are just gimmicks and distractions. My kids have had whole classes on how to use specific software products, like Microsoft Word and Excel. They teach kids how to use smart phones. Yes, this is very trendy. If that idea had been popular when I was in high school, I suppose I would have learned how to use a Walkman and a VCR. The problem with teaching the latest gadgets is that in a few years they will be superseded by newer gadgets. If a student is taught the basics of math and science and history, he can apply it to many situations. If a student is taught to use smart phone model 2379B revision 4, then when revision 5 comes out, his education is obsolete.
In response to:

Statistical Frauds

mjohansen Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 4:20 PM
If you really believe that women are paid only 77% of what men are paid, here's an easy way to get rich quick. Start a business -- any business, apparently -- and hire only women. Pay them, say, 85% of what you would pay a man. You should then easily be able to hire the most skilled and experienced women out there because you're paying them more than any other job the could get. Morale and productivity should be through the roof. And your labor costs will still be 15% less than all the foolish other companies who hire men. So why aren't there hundreds or thousands of companies out there doing this? Even if all the male business owners are too sexist to even think of it, there are plenty of female business owners. And anyone who did it should be trouncing the competition.
The writer is obviously missing one of the most fundamental ground rules for judging Christian claims. Namely: If a non-Biblical source contradicts the Bible, the non-Biblical source is always assumed to be correct and the Bible to be wrong. It doesn't matter who wrote it or when of if there is any evidence to support it.
I recall when Bush 2 won the first time, some Republicans were exulting that this was the start of "the permanent Republican majority". Then Democrats win an election and they start crowing that the Republican party is dead. Someone might just as well have said in 2008 that IF the Republicans win the election, that would mean the Democrats had lost 6 out of the last 8. Given that the last few elections have all been like 51-49 and polls routinely show the voters pretty evenly split, I think the safe bet is that both parties will be around for a while yet.
Umm, the write did give evidence. He mentioned the booing of God at the last Democratic national convention. He mentioned Obama trying to force Christians to pay for abortions under Obamacare. Etc. One could also mention the Democrats trying to force photographers and bakers to participate in gay "weddings". The Democrats support for government sponsorship of obscene and blasphemous art -- remember that photographer who got a government grant to urinate on a crucifix?-- while declaring that government funding for anything that has a hint of being pro-Christian is unacceptable. Etc etc. Do we really need to prove this? I suppose the writer didn't prove that Obama is a Democrat or that America is in the Western Hemisphere, either, but some facts are so well-known and obvious that proving them would be rather redundant.
Democrats have uses for Christianity now and then. Like when MSNBC proclaimed that Jesus is in favor of Obamacare. So doesn't that mean that Obamacare is an unconstitutional entanglement of church and state? Liberals routinely proclaim that they support government anti-poverty programs because of Christian faith and principles. But if a conservative says that he opposes abortion or gay marriage for the same reason, that's out of line.
Yup, that would be the point. You apparently can't find such statements in your Bible because you never read it. You just make up what you would like to believe and then claim that is in the Bible. How about, for starters, Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Or Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." 1 Timothy 6:20, "Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge." The Bible -- the Christian Bible, that is, not the one you read -- clearly says over and over that there is truth and there is error and there are lies, and Christians should seek the truth and reject the lies.
1 - 10 Next