Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Taking Christ's name in vain, Biden blasts biblical marriage 'bigots'


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And when one side uses common sense and science

 

While the other side uses a popular old book....

 

 

 

.... The two sides shouldn't be treated equally. They don't have the same level of merit.

Common sense says much of science is flawed.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken

 

Your scientific reasoning is flawed...as is the science behind man made global warming.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-scientific-reasoning-more-flawed-than-you-think/

 

2ho8w2q.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You use the two hand and hand. Know when to use one over the other.

 

 

 

 

But I like your post. Now we can ignore scientific data, no matter how overwhelming it is, if the conclusion is something we disagree with. The vast, vast majority of climatologists, through countless peer reviewed articles, all same man is affecting climate change? False! Cuz some guy flubbed numbers before. All of science I now invalidated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may indeed be nearing the end times because Isaiah 5:20 says "Woe to those that call evil good and good evil..."

 

This is exactly what liberals have done.

 

We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.

 

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

 

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

 

We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

 

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

 

We have abused power and called it politics.

 

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

 

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

 

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it Pluralism.

 

We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

 

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

 

By some evangelist..Billy Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another fallacy often repeated from ignorant atheists is the claim that throughout history there has been more bloodshed in the name of religion than anything else...when in fact it is atheism that is behind the most killings, murders, and genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An atheist will claim that religion is not required to be good, but without God there are no moral truths. There are only moral opinions. If there is no God, ethics are subjective.

Disagree completely, you can have ethics and morals without religion. They may coincide on a lot of things, and disagree on others, but you absolutely don't need religion to have ethics. If you need religion to be a good person, you're a shitty person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, taking cancer studies as indicative of science is just a little bit stupid. It's a disease we know relatively little about the causes and treatment compared to other things that have in fact been cured (even if we're just staying in the medical field). It's because of this that you won't see a consensus on any of those things listed in your picture, and nobody's going to use milk, eggs, coffee or beef to treat their cancer.

 

These things are so widespread that you'll probably get some correlation in any study you do, and there's little-to-no causation there. The scientists are just reporting spurious results on the off chance that they're not spurious, and that everyone else finds that an omelette a day will shrink your tumour; at which point, the process of identifying what exactly in the eggs is doing the good, extracting it, enhancing it and using it in greater quantities begins.

 

If you want to ignore anything produced by science and the scientific method then go for it, but you can start by never using a computer again, doing your own farming, using original fruit and veg varieties that haven't been spliced for better flavour/size/hardiness etc and all that stuff that the boogeyman has created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree completely, you can have ethics and morals without religion. They may coincide on a lot of things, and disagree on others, but you absolutely don't need religion to have ethics. If you need religion to be a good person, you're a shitty person.

 

I didn't say you can't have morals and ethics without religion (belief in a God to be more specific), I also didn't imply you need religion to be a good person. There are good atheists and there are bad Christians.

 

I'm saying what you just said, that there can be conflict over what is moral and what isn't...immorality becomes a matter of opinion. With God there is no question. An upstanding and decent citizen could argue that murder is not immoral. Without God ethics and morality are subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to ignore anything produced by science and the scientific method then go for it, but you can start by never using a computer again, doing your own farming, using original fruit and veg varieties that haven't been spliced for better flavour/size/hardiness etc and all that stuff that the boogeyman has created.

There you people go again with your blathering generalizations LOL.

 

No Chris, science is a wonderful thing. I know, I'm in it. Just making sure people understand science isn't always "exact".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, your claim is unsubstantiated, just seems nonsense because you didn't like Reagan

because he was very conservative.

 

or very dirty and corrupt. Probably more likely.

Cute. As a flaming lefty you unknowingly separated "conservative" from "dirty and corrupt".

 

Go ahead deny it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you people go again with your blathering generalizations LOL.

 

No Chris, science is a wonderful thing. I know, I'm in it. Just making sure people understand science isn't always "exact".

Research science isn't exact - if it were, it wouldn't be research. But most of science is pretty spot on. This is how we can, for example, correct for the time difference caused by the fact that a satellite in orbit is experiencing a faster progression of time than we are because the effect of gravity is weaker, plus the time it takes for the signal to bounce back again. That's pretty exact science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say you can't have morals and ethics without religion (belief in a God to be more specific), I also didn't imply you need religion to be a good person. There are good atheists and there are bad Christians.

 

I'm saying what you just said, that there can be conflict over what is moral and what isn't...immorality becomes a matter of opinion. With God there is no question. An upstanding and decent citizen could argue that murder is not immoral. Without God ethics and morality are subjective.

I think you end up with an agreed upon set of morals that everyone adheres to (or at least should). They certainly had morals before the bible came along to tell them how to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another fallacy often repeated from ignorant atheists is the claim that throughout history there has been more bloodshed in the name of religion than anything else...when in fact it is atheism that is behind the most killings, murders, and genocide.

Any support for this claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An atheist will claim that religion is not required to be good, but without God there are no moral truths. There are only moral opinions. If there is no God, ethics are subjective.

So when did morals start to exist? Did Egyptians have morals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan was the best President this country has ever had.

 

To really appreciate how good Reagan was you had to live under Jimmy Carter (who was awful) Reagan inherited a mess from Carter but I never heard him whine about how everything bad was all Jimmy Carter's fault like Obama has done with Bush for all these years. Under Reagan this country was strong economically and militarily. .

 

I never thought we would have a worse president than Jimmy Carter but I guess I underestimated the democratic party who gave us Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there?

I think the key word in your statement should be semantics.

 

I also don't think you can make much of a case for it.

 

WSS

Well clearly, yes. If someone thinks it's immoral to abandon a political party, while the rest of the world disagrees, I think we can be sure who's being objective and who's being subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well clearly, yes. If someone thinks it's immoral to abandon a political party, while the rest of the world disagrees, I think we can be sure who's being objective and who's being subjective.

Well shall we assume that someone believes the platforms of, let's use communism as an example, is right and just and fair. that should be an easy argument to make right?

So to be disloyal to those core values would be immoral. unfortunately that starts with an unsound premise which is that there is something right or wrong about justice and equality. that is something that someone made up, believes is right and insists on enforcing. why would that be better or worse then saying it came from the Bible, or the Urania or The Silmarillion?

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when did morals start to exist? Did Egyptians have morals?

I don't know. I suppose the Egyptians along with many ancient cultures may have had a moral and ethical code they lived by...that said, they may have been of the opinion that the enslavement of the Israelites was not immoral.

 

That's one reason God wrote the 10 Commandments, and later through his Son JC paid a visit to earth....to set things straight on this morality shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well shall we assume that someone believes the platforms of, let's use communism as an example, is right and just and fair. that should be an easy argument to make right?

So to be disloyal to those core values would be immoral. unfortunately that starts with an unsound premise which is that there is something right or wrong about justice and equality. that is something that someone made up, believes is right and insists on enforcing. why would that be better or worse then saying it came from the Bible, or the Urania or The Silmarillion?

 

WSS

So you take what you know to be a shaky basis, extrapolate, criticise the result because it has a shaky basis, and somehow think you made a relevant point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you take what you know to be a shaky basis, extrapolate, criticise the result because it has a shaky basis, and somehow think you made a relevant point?

Well certainly more relevant than making no point at all wouldn't you say? Why don't you give me a list of your completely secular moral truth?

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...