Then you should be made accountable for your actions, what the....?
Last edited:
Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
Man of Honour
Whether the Big Bang theory is accepted scientific fact or not is irrelevant. The priest was the start of a large part of scientific thinking today. You can't say that religious people don't make large scientific contributions.
Soldato
Regardless of whether you agree with the Church or not - to say it doesn't do anything is just silly.
But we did evolve (we didn't from monkeys & apes specifically, we share a common ancestry).
You only display how little you understand the subject.
The common household mousetrap and the human eye.
Care to share this informaton?, but you will have to start a new topic.
Soldato
Why on earth do people keep bringing up evolution as an argument against religion?
"Religious people have grown intolerant of our intolerance of their intolerance."
-Ben Goldacre
I don't remember seeing groups of Atheists and Agnostics walking the streets of Britain handing out leaflets calling for the death of people in minority groups or knocking on doors trying to sell Atheism.
1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
LOL at the BBC comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831
-Ben Goldacre
I don't remember seeing groups of Atheists and Agnostics walking the streets of Britain handing out leaflets calling for the death of people in minority groups or knocking on doors trying to sell Atheism.
1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
LOL at the BBC comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831
The Church isn't a person, it's not capable of directly doing anything - it's the people who follow it or the members within it.
Soldato
Which schools are you referring to?
Soldato
Nothing is true, Everything is permitted.
Soldato
Ben Goldacre is a bigot.
Soldato
That is just silly.
If you ignore the fact that an anti contraception stance is effectively supporting a patriarchal society then there is nothing wrong with that stance in isolation. However in conjunction with the situation in Africa it is helping cause untold suffering. I agree that if people followed the whole message (no sex until you are married, monogamous relationships etc) then problems would be greatly reduced but people aren't following the whole message. In this situation the Catholic church's stance on condom use is problematic, especially when they use their political strength to supress contraception advice or contraception availability.
Lying about the effectiveness of condoms is pretty despicable though.
1. Mousetrap - you can remove the base & attach the pieces to the floor, keeping part of the function but losing one attribute - mobility.
2. The eye, the lens of the eye - is similar to the lens in the pinhole style eye in the nautilus - a less complex version - some fish have basic eyes using part of our system using the flagellum.
Some species have light sensitive skin, you can use most of the parts of the eye & still have some functionality - also, you can remove parts of the eye (like the ability for it to move & the eye will retain it's functionality (by being able to move the body instead of the eye for a light sensitive patch of skin).
Both of these examples show that neither of the things you listed are irreducibly complex.
Also, on a lasting note.
Why are you trying to use an example of a mouse-trap, something which we both know DIDN'T evolve as an example against evolution & irreducible complexity?, even if it was irreducible complex (which it isn't as I just proved), it is irrelevant in this discussion as it's not even biological & was created by man.
But anyway, enough on evolution - I've demolished every single thing you have said & if you want to discuss it further make a new thread.
Ok, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, i'll wait for your new topic on this matter at hand and we can disscuss away, but for now i have to go do some work.
Soldato
You have identified the flaw in your argument. The Church has a position on sex. Some people pick and choose which parts they follow. To criticise the Church because people only follow things on an a la carte basis is unfair.
Not an argument I have heard before. Got a source for this?
Soldato
Indeed. Using it as an argument against religion comes from a position of ignorance.
Permabanned
Religious people as individuals probably have made significant contribution to the progression of man kind but that was in spite of the religious mental prison, not thanks to it.
Hang on, the flaw in my argument is that the Chruch is quite happy to ignore reality? No, I would say that this is a flaw in the Church policy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
One among many.