Yeah and it bothers me that the wrong apartment thing holds any water. Anyone who was not a cop would get no traction with such a ridiculous excuse.
Attractive enough blonde cop gets super lenient punishment for cold blooded murder.
For a cop anything worse than suspended w/pay is a huge outlier.
1 Like
He said God, not religion. Conflating the two is missing the point incredibly.
I’m trying to find a cartoon…possibly from the New Yorker. The joke is that cable news feels the need to have on both sides of an issue to discuss a topic. And the punch line is something like, “And now to represent the other side of things… we’ll have on this complete idiot.”
Anything? TIA
Clovis didn’t actually say god. He was responding to a post that was talking about not having the definitive answer on God/atheism. So my characterization of Clovis’ post is that he claims to have the definitive answer and atheism is right and any other belief is wrong and foolish. If that’s not what Clovis thinks then he can correct me but I think what I wrote is fair.
No, religion without god is just philosophy. Keed is missing the point (probably intentionally) that science can investigate religion because religion is grounded in a claim about existence, God’s existence.
No, I’m saying that using science to investigate religion is missing the point. Religion isn’t about explaining the world in a rigorous and scientific way, it’s about finding meaning and community and self-help and direction. Is it a coincidence that basically every society has had religion and spirituality as an important part of its culture? The religious impulse seems to be an innate feature of humans. And science simply isn’t competition for religion – it doesn’t even attempt to fill the same things that religion fills in people’s lives. So using science to “debunk” religion makes zero sense at all.
I no more willing to debate the factual existence of god than I am fairies, dragons or leprechauns. Each hold the exact same weight in terms of evidence for existence.
It’s a complete waste of time and frankly even engaging in the discussion elevates the idea of god in ways it doesn’t warrant.
This is hilariously, galactically, monumentally wrong.
Eyebooger said God/atheism. Clovis responded to God/atheism. You brought in religion.
Atheism is about the existence of God/s. Atheism is not about the existence of religion/s.
You are wrong. Just take the L and move on.
This
go on
Uh, I definetly wasn’t saying that Clovis was saying religions don’t exist. I’m sure we can all agree that they exist.
Clovis is iirc a fervent follower of the obnoxious evangelical atheists like Sam Harris. So when Clovis 8 says that he can like scientifically prove that atheism is correct he’s trying to delegitimize religions. To me that misses the point of religion bigly. But again Clovis, if this isn’t what you’re saying then tell me what you actually think.
1 Like
I was never asked to be an altar boy. It didn’t bother me at the time, but years later I did think back and wonder why not. There weren’t that many kids attending mass every week, guess I just didn’t catch the eye.
(Shouldn’t joke, obv, a priest from my school is currently at her majesty’s pleasure)
This seems like the right thread for this:
Jacob Wohl’s press conference is lol (see whole thread):
I hope this is true bc it would be amazing if Warren is banging 24-year-old dudes on the DL while Trump has to pay $5k to middle-aged porn stars for sex.
1 Like
No thanks. I’ll pass.
Shocking.
1 Like
You quoted his words, and said he was missing the point terribly, then when corrected, walked it back to “well, I’m not addressing the words he just said, which I’ve quoted, but some position I infer he takes from other words he’s said before which I’m not quoting.”
And as a tangent, your characterization of religion is pretty misleading. You’re giving a secular anthropologist’s definition of religion, stripping out all the woo-woo, then complaining that someone wanted to test it (as what, some homogeneous entity?) scientifically.
They usually passed down Received Knowledge, often from the Creator of the Universe, about the beginnings of the universe and of human beings. Questioning this Knowledge was usually not allowed, so I’ll agree that religions don’t try to explain the world “in a rigorous and scientific way.” The folk-lorish tales that came from God’s mouth failed miserably in light of facts, and religions had to de-emphasize those cosmogony and human-beginnings claims or “reinterpret” them in such vague ways as to be useless.