1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Noah: One of the Most Moral Stories Ever Told

TBP Wrote: Mar 18, 2014 3:17 PM
OK, I'll correct you. First, the vast majority of this unimaginably vast universe is absolutely hostile to life, not just human life, but any kind of life. On Earth itself, only a relatively small part of the planet is habitable by humans, and even then we require a considerable amount of artifice (shelter, clothing, heat, etc.) in most places to survive. This is a very strange definition of "fine tuning." Second, you've got the causation backwards. The universe isn't the way it is in order for us to exist, rather, we exist in the form we do because of the way the universe (in particular our very small corner of it) is. We conform to the universe, not the other way around. If the universe and the laws of nature were significantly different, then a different kind of life might have arisen (or perhaps there would be no life at all). Finally, any actual scientist will freely admit that we know only the barest fraction of what there is to know about the universe, and that most of we know is tentative and subject to change. Still, we know WAY more than we did even a generation ago, and WAY, WAY, WAAAAAY more than we did when the myths that make up the Bible were written down. And one of the things we do know is that there was no world-wide flood 4-8 thousand years ago.
In response to:

Noah: One of the Most Moral Stories Ever Told

TBP Wrote: Mar 18, 2014 2:39 PM
Gonna need a few cites for that "nearly all folk lore" claim, and especially the "incredible amount of scientific evidence supporting the flood" claim, given that actual scientists haven't found any at all in over two hundred years of looking.
In response to:

Obama Prohibits Practice of Catholicism in US

TBP Wrote: Oct 03, 2013 12:01 PM
Except they're not.
In response to:

Obama Prohibits Practice of Catholicism in US

TBP Wrote: Oct 03, 2013 11:17 AM
Can you give a single cite for a single Catholic hospital or doctor being "forced" to perform even a single abortion. I thought not.
In response to:

Obama Prohibits Practice of Catholicism in US

TBP Wrote: Oct 03, 2013 11:16 AM
The money that employers pay for health insurance for their employees ISN'T THEIR MONEY (sorry for shouting). It's the employees' money, as it is part of their compensation package. Your employer has no more right to impose his religious beliefs on your insurance coverage than he does to tell you what you can and cannot spend your salary on. Why is this such a hard concept.
Religion is a changeable, voluntary characteristic, and yet it is protected, both Constitutionally and by statute. Even if homosexuality were chosen, and there is absolutely no evidence that it is, that wouldn't matter.
As I asked above: does anyone get to disobey any law they disagree with, as long as their disagreement is religiously based, or is it only people you agree with? Seriously, what are the criteria, and how can you allow this and have anything resembling an ordered society?
OK, here's the question I always ask about situations about this (and never get a consistent, rational answer to): Does anyone get to disobey any law they disagree with, as long as it's on religious grounds? If not, who decides who gets to disobey which laws, and what are the criteria? If these people can disobey anti-discrimination laws, why can't someone else deny service to blacks or Jews, as long as they have a religious reason for it? I could go on and on with examples, but perhaps that makes the point.
In response to:

The Arena of Politics

TBP Wrote: Jul 17, 2013 4:34 PM
I don't think the hippie "movement" was nearly as well-organized and cohesive as you apparently do.
In response to:

The Arena of Politics

TBP Wrote: Jul 17, 2013 4:32 PM
Who, exactly, has suggested depriving Ms. Cushman of any of her rights? Criticism is not censorship, no matter how many right-wingers think so. We are suggesting that it is extremely hypocritical of her to suggest that other people's sexual shenanigans should disqualify them from public office forever, when her father's own behavior in this department is pretty shameful as well (I would argue serial adultery and non-support of children is as bad as what Ms. Cushman is decrying here). If she thinks his peccadillos were somehow not as bad, she really ought to explain that. It's also really not smart to think people wouldn't call on her on it.
1 - 10 Next