Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Religion & Society / Re: creationism as a political weapon
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 07:54:14 PM »
There are lots of ways that would be an improvement over "oopsie". Having pregnancy only occur if both people involved actually want a baby would be a huge step in the right direction.

But just having people want the baby is not enough. Both parties can be 17 year old homeless runaways with no jobs, and think they are in love and decide to make a baby. Or they could be mentally ill adults who want to make babies but have no way to care for them. And so on.

I would still want god to have some conditions in place besides "we both want a kid" to make sure the parents can care for the baby for the next two decades. Wanting a cute little baby is one thing. Being able to support another human being full time, on call 24-7, through all the stages of life until adulthood is a whole 'nother smoke.
General Religious Discussion / Re: From A Christian
« Last post by velkyn on Yesterday at 07:51:39 PM »
Are you unintentionally letting it slip that atheists are just as divided as christians?

atheists agree on no god/s.   Not divided on that at all.   
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Not from Monkeys, but from worms
« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 07:33:21 PM »
Our politicians prayed for rain in the last drought and mothballed a reverse osmosis facility.
She just wouldn't get serviced.

So, it shouldn't be against the law simply to have her face covered by clothing, is what you're saying.

Also, I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from one can deposit one's money into the bank without any interaction with banking staff whatsoever.  Do they have bank machines where you're from, Chronos?
What should be the legal penalty if this woman fails to remove her face covering when she goes to deposit money in the bank?

She just wouldn't get serviced.

Of course, this whole issue of the burqa assumes that the woman can go around town on her own. To my knowledge, those who cite religious requirements for the burqa do not allow their women to go around town by themselves. They always have to be escorted by an adult male family member. The only time they can remove their veils is in their own homes and only with the permission of their husbands, who, to my understanding, is not likely to give it unless you are another family member.

^^^That is a bad precedent.

To ban clothing items because of someone's opinion about what a person might have done, or might someday do, is wrong. That is saying someone is guilty and must prove themselves innocent, if they are wearing a burka. Yeah, it could be a guy hiding from a crime. If you have probable cause to think that, then get a female officer and search for him. Otherwise, think your disapproving thoughts and let it go.

So what? Somebody who suddenly takes off running when they see the cops. Is that someone who is guilty and has to prove him/herself innocent? Yes. He/she (usually a he) is likely to be chased and arrested for simply running away from a cop when he/she did nothing wrong. There are other circumstances where we have to prove ourselves good. I'm not paving a new road here.

I think we should all walk around wearing balaclavas, citing our religious rights and then see how many people deal with us nicely. We're going to get bad looks and likely a call for the cops. But, if it's a religious right, then you can't kick me out or fail to serve me or fail to open the cash register in my presence. Again, if it ain't gonna happen for the rest of us, why should they get a bye?

Don't get me wrong. I do not approve of the Muslim cover. It seems like an extreme measure if a woman has to basically hide inside a portable tent to feel protected and respected. In my perfect world, none of that nonsense would be allowed. But it is not my perfect world, is it?

But I do not approve of lots of things other people wear ...

Neither do I approve of some of the literally shitty clothing choices people make. I'd have no problem telling a woman who ain't wearing undies to get out of my restaurant or out of my cab because her hoo-haa and back door are smearing herself on my seats. That's a safety issue, as well. However, she's not covering her face.

Have you ever seen the signs that say "No shoes, No shirt, No service"?  As a pagan nudist you are violating my rights to walk around nude. Why can't I go shopping at the mall in the nude? Even when it's 100F outside? Because we set limits on what we let people do even when it may be their religious practice.

And boys in those pants that sag so far down they trip and fall running to the bus--that is a health hazard. In my perfect world, none of that nonsense would be allowed. But it is not my perfect world, is it?

We could ban that, too, as a safety issue, but it would be nearly impossible to enforce because all they have to do is pull up their pants when a cop comes around. However, at least they aren't covering their faces.

I don't approve of plastic surgery, women risking their lives to get bigger breasts and butts, Asian people having their eyes cut up to look like Europeans. Older people getting poison injected into their faces to look younger. Men getting chin implants to look more manly. I think it is a ridiculous waste of medical resources. In my perfect world, none of that nonsense would be allowed. But it is not my perfect world, is it?

But at least they aren't covering their faces.   In a few of those cases of idiotic plastic surgery, they would be better off if they did cover their faces. There could be a medical reason for someone to cover his/her face, but those situations are rare.

I am a black woman with dreadlocks. There are people who think I should straighten my hair to look more "presentable" and middle class, like Michelle Obama. Or buy a straight weave like Beyonce or Oprah. Or at least wear a wig when I am around white people.

Only idiots get in a grind over dreadlocks, but I understand those idiots exist. Even with dreadlocks I can still see your face.

I can't tell you how many times I have been stopped and pulled out for the "random search" at the airport while my white husband is waved on through. Guilty based on appearance, until proven innocent.

Well, that is racial profiling which isn't the issue presented in the OP.

If I wanted to wear a burka, I would be pretty damn pissed off if someone else had the nerve to get up in my face and lecture me about my backward culture.  And tell me about how it would be more civilized to show off my tits in a low cut top, or bare my a$$ in a short mini skirt or a pair of tight yoga pants instead.

At no time did I, do I or ever would do something like that. I see Amish, Mennonites, Pentecostals and Mormon missionaries in their terribly easy-to-identify clothing, some of which is not conducive to many activities like working in the garden or trekking out in a snowstorm, and I don't care about it in the least ... because none of them cover their faces. If covering a face became some kind of religious element for the Amish, they would get my ire, too.

Once you start legislating what other people can look like, what they can wear beyond basic safety, you get into a real slippery slope.

I'm not legislating what other people look like. I'm voting for uncovering your face unless it is a job requirement (military, surgeons, etc), and only then while necessary. If you want to run around covered from head to toe, including your hands, that's fine.

^ But show me your face.  I currently serve many Muslim customers, but I've yet to have one come in wearing a burqa. If I did, I would tell her to uncover her face. If she couldn't do that, I would tell her that I cannot serve her. In my line of work, especially, we have to be able to identify people.

Evolution & Creationism / Re: Not from Monkeys, but from worms
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 05:54:49 PM »
Don't just pray about it, do something about it.

Edit to add....

Actions speak louder than prayers.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Not from Monkeys, but from worms
« Last post by nogodsforme on Yesterday at 05:50:45 PM »
^^^Very good points.

Science can build on what people have figured out before. Once you have the basics worked out, like the idea that infectious diseases are caused by germs (not demons), the basics rarely change. You try x, y and z to get rid of the germs and cure the disease. Then you can figure out how the disease is transmitted and prevent it in the first place.

The best part, is when another disease comes along, you don't have to throw out everything and start from scratch. You pick up where your previous knowledge left off, and start from there, already ahead of the game. It is very unlikely that a disease will come along, have all the scientists are completely baffled, and it turns out that demons are behind it after all.

But you cannot say the same thing with religion. Modern Christians can't look at ancient people and say, "Boy they sure prayed badly back then. That is why they only lived to age 40. We know how to pray right today. That is why we make it to 85. We talk to god correctly." Because modern Christians in places without medical science only make it to age 40, just like in ancient times. Heathen atheists in places with medical science, like in godless Japan, live to be 85.

Just compare how people dealt with the plague in pre-scientific medicine era to how AIDS and Ebola are handled by science today. Ancient people prayed for god to save them from the plague. Some 40% of Europe died.  Prayer did not help in any that could be copied and repeated. One person prayed for recovered, while three others who were prayed for, in the same room by the same people, died. The priests and others who visited the sick to comfort and pray for them died in greater numbers than the selfish unbelieving a$$holes who stayed home. What was god trying to say-- don't pray?

And it did not matter what religion the people belonged to. Every ancient society was devastated by infectious diseases. For thousands of years, leprosy was the most fearsome thing ever. Prayer did not work. The only solution was isolating the infected away from others.  Until the mid-20th century when science found a cure. When was the last time you even heard of a case of leprosy?

AIDS has gone from the 1980's "gay plague" with a 100% death rate to a manageable illness where thousands of infected people can live fairly normal lives. In less than 40 years. A vaccine will be invented in the near future and AIDS will join polio and smallpox as diseases that we won't have to worry much about.

Left up to religion, there would have been no research into curing AIDS-- god clearly wanted to punish homo men, so he gave them this horrible disease.[1]

Ebola is going to be history even faster-- it is already controllable in places with good medical facilities. I have a colleague who is working with the virus in Africa. They are developing a vaccine that will work even better than the traditional ones where the antibodies have to grow in a person.

 1. Too bad mothers and babies in Africa get it at even higher rates than homo men in the US. And homo women almost never get it. God works in mysterious ways. He hates homo men, and non-homo African families. He likes homo women, though.
General Religious Discussion / Re: From A Christian
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 05:20:01 PM »
But that right there is your own personal feelings. There is no guarantee that every atheist thinks life is sacred or worth preserving.

Suppose an atheist gets into power and shouts "We're all just bags of flesh on a big rock in a meaningless existence! Do whatever you want!" What happens then?

But that right there is your own personal feelings. There is no guarantee that every Christian thinks life is sacred or worth preserving.

Suppose a Christian gets into power and shouts "We're all just spiders in the hands of an angry God! Follow God's law or we will kill you!" What happens then?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10