To some it essentially is a religion, but not to all. I consider it generally a part of one or more religions (many faiths have taken it into consideration), in which case, yeah, it's not a religion. Though I do feel it is closely associated with religion, and I feel that a large part of it is held together by faith (not necessarily blind, but for some people I know of it is). Also, I don't want to argue here the legitimacy any particular religion or belief (I consider Evolution to be a belief), because I remember you saying that you prefer no response to responses without much to go on.
is there another way to interpret god doing science? Not sure which I dislike the most, religion claiming adam and eve or religion claiming that evolution is a religion. To me this just feels like religious nutters feel like everything is religion so evolution must be religion in order to place it. Nvm I'm being a ****, ya'll religious folk do what ya'll gotta do
I'm honestly not sure why it makes some people so unhappy to have others call Evolution (and usually by extension, atheism) a religion. Care to do me a favor and explain for me? (I've seen plenty of explanations as to why people do or don't think it is a religion, but never why they have feelings about that description one way or another). For me, calling it a religion just makes sense to me, as I'm mildly open to changing the definition of religion, and Evolution often seems to me like a new(ish) secular/"modern" type of religion. I don't care all that much, it just seems to make sense in how I think of religion (less supernatural and ritualistic type stuff, and more adherence to/faith in a set of beliefs about the origin of life, as well as establishing a base for morality).
The only thing that religion and evolution have in common is that they try to explain the origin of species. This is only a part of "religion" and the full meaning of evolution. That would be like comparing a train and a tire, a train is a means of transportation and a tire is a part of a means of transportation. That does in no way mean that a tire itself is considered a means of transportation as you do a train. Not sure how you call it in English, non-native speaker yada yada, but a part of the whole and the whole are completely different things. There's this nice saying in dutch for it in argumentation classes I had in lawschool, but I'm to lazy to start looking up complete english translations. You get the gist though.
That makes sense. So... You're just being a definition "National Socialist party member" (gosh dang censoring)? I guess that's fair.
Draw a silly cartoon of Muhammad, share it with the entire world--including self-dox--and let us know how it goes. Still "lol"ing? Do the same with Jesus, Buddha, Moses and/or Krishna first though, so as to better compare and contrast. Remember, any gender or skin color can join any one of the aforementioned agents of socialization.
evolution does not explain the exponential increase in human development. alien intervention does. also, why the chemistry graphic? how is that anti religion? i don't remember the bible saying thou shalt not believe in the atom. in fact they've even discovered the god particle. so there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God Well, well, well worth the read! On my buy list, cause pure winsauce.
Electors under siege Members of the Electoral College have been inundated by harassing phone calls and hate mail. Many report receiving death threats. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electors-under-siege-232774 Peace and tolerance--but only if u vote and think exactly like the intellectuals--is our strength. I promise.
because right wing has never done this before this is a shitty human issue, not just a left issue Paint me a picture of the fanmail Obama got when he got elected.
Yes, this is true. However, the point DJ was trying to make (I think), is that "the left" in the US has often taken the "moral high-ground" (insert Star Wars III joke here), and in this case they are encouraging their members to act like this (though you could say indirectly, as with things Trump said). So, the annoyance and anger are more related to the hypocrisy of it. It happens on both sides, certainly, but this is a very blatant and open example of it. I honestly don't remember as big of a reaction to Obama being elected (I remember the reactions, some were disgusting yes, but those were a tiny minority).
I never claimed it was only a Left issue. Sadly, I lack the necessary skillz to paint you a decent pic of Obama's fanmail. My wife did not vote for HRC or Trump, but she is disgusted by the riots and the Russian conspiracy theory reaction of the Left.
There were marches with very vivid pictures (obama burning/hanging/kenya ) and profanities towards Obama when he got elected. And sure, I can see that. However the problem with these situations are that there is a chunk of people that are either ignorant and/or shitty human beings, which leads to them always doing dumb Bane Shift, regardless of them being left/right and regardless of what others in the party may have said. I'm not sure if this is a left thing to be arrogant on a moral level, but I can believe it. I think it ties to the popular vote thing as well. As well as people being absolute idiots. If politicians are actually encouraging people to do these things, they should know better and be called out for it. Then again, the average politicians isn't the sharpest tool in the shed either it seems.
The only thing I don't tolerate is intolerance. This joke was made in here a few times right? It's about the same as "I hate dumb people" But divisive tactics serve many advantages, and echo chambers are easy to setup with today's technology regardless of political association or ideologies. Just make sure dem poor people are mad at other poor people and we be all gravy baby. There was a time where using the same facts would arrive at different opinions which made for healthy debate. These days it seems like people are using different sets of facts, which is impossible for constructive communication.
The problem is they are not using facts and calling them facts. if you do not know who 'they' are you are one of 'them' !!!
is it really winning the popular vote when you only won the popular vote in a few states but lose the popular vote in every other state? that's the mistake the left makes (and the right doesn't correct properly). states matter. the popular vote in those states matter. you win a state by winning the popular vote in that state. the electoral college does not trump the popular vote. it just reflects the popular vote by state. its not surprising though that the left doesn't understand what states are. they would probably be happy doing away with statehood and just having a massive federal government.
