Science and Religious belief

wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:59:33 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 12:10:29 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:46:03 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

A school not teaching evolution for religious reasons is the equivalent of
a madrassa.

As a kid, I sort of taught myself evolution, astronomy, geology, etc., by
reading books and encyclopedias about those subjects on my own. Most of
my classmates also seemed to have a good grasp of science.

If your school had taught creation science things might be different.

It wouldn't have mattered. I would still have been reading my science
books, encyclopedias, magazines,...looking through my microscope, hiking
in the woods, etc.,

So you support the teaching of creation science then?

How the **** would you come to THAT conclusion??

You really CAN'T think!

Look above. You seem to object to my suggestion that a school not teaching
evolution for religious reasons is equivalent to a madrassa. You think
teaching creation science in schools wouldn't effect the education of
children.
The two go together.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:05:57 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:37:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:05:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:58:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Why do you always have to be so nasty? Does it make you feel good somehow?

""In this thread you have been nasty to me, yet you have the effrontery to call ME nasty?"

In this thread (Science and Religious Belief)? Where? Please point it out. Merci beaucoup.

You wrote:

"Again he's projecting. That's what regressives do. They project their own feelings and thoughts on others and then berate others for having those thoughts, when in fact others do not have them."

"No matter what you say, they will take issue with it. For instance, you may say that you love your mother. They will then ask why you hate your father."

That's not nasty. That's just stating facts. You do take issue with people no matter what they say, and you project. And then you call them nasty names.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:05:57 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:37:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:05:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:58:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Why do you always have to be so nasty? Does it make you feel good somehow?

""In this thread you have been nasty to me, yet you have the effrontery to call ME nasty?"

In this thread (Science and Religious Belief)? Where? Please point it out. Merci beaucoup.

You wrote:

"Again he's projecting. That's what regressives do. They project their own feelings and thoughts on others and then berate others for having those thoughts, when in fact others do not have them."

"No matter what you say, they will take issue with it. For instance, you may say that you love your mother. They will then ask why you hate your father."

That's not nasty. That's just stating facts. You do take issue with people no
matter what they say, and you project. And then you call them nasty names.

Calling someone a "regressive" is rather nasty and impolite.

Your tone is, as always, one of arrogance and intolerance of opposing views. You hold those with whom you disagree to higher standards than you do for those with whom you agree.

And you need to drop that "project" nonsense out of your vocabulary; it makes you sound like a ninth-grader.

Just stating facts.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:49:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Calling someone a "regressive" is rather nasty and impolite.

In common modern usage, the word is used to describe a political
viewpoint that is substantially opposed to "progressive". As such, it
is an accurate description of your ideology, and I'm curious why you
choose to see it as an insult.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:50:24 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:05:57 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:37:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 12:40:14 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:05:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:58:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Why do you always have to be so nasty? Does it make you feel good somehow?

""In this thread you have been nasty to me, yet you have the effrontery to call ME nasty?"

In this thread (Science and Religious Belief)? Where? Please point it out. Merci beaucoup.

You wrote:

"Again he's projecting. That's what regressives do. They project their own feelings and thoughts on others and then berate others for having those thoughts, when in fact others do not have them."

"No matter what you say, they will take issue with it. For instance, you may say that you love your mother. They will then ask why you hate your father."

That's not nasty. That's just stating facts. You do take issue with people no
matter what they say, and you project. And then you call them nasty names.

Calling someone a "regressive" is rather nasty and impolite.

Regressive simply means someone who wants to go back to an earlier era where things were more the way they want them to be today. Like the 1950's Father Knows Best, or the time of Ronald Reagan.

You also call people "liberal" and mean it as some kind of negative thing. Again. Liberal is not a negative term, it simply means that person has a more communitarian outlook. It does not mean communist or Nazi or dictatorship.

Your tone is, as always, one of arrogance and intolerance of opposing views. You hold those with whom you disagree to higher standards than you do for those with whom you agree.

That's your view, and you are welcome to it, since this is a free country.

And you need to drop that "project" nonsense out of your vocabulary; it makes you sound like a ninth-grader.

You certainly do project. Perhaps you don't know what it means. Projection: projecting your own failings onto someone else.

Just stating facts.

Yes indeed, that's what I was doing.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 4:29:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:49:59 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Calling someone a "regressive" is rather nasty and impolite.

In common modern usage, the word is used to describe a political
viewpoint that is substantially opposed to "progressive". As such, it
is an accurate description of your ideology, and I'm curious why you
choose to see it as an insult.

I am more in favor of progress than you are. You just -call- yourself progressive.

You are in favor of tyranny and mob rule, and restricting peoples' freedoms,
IOW a regression back to the middle ages. You think slavery is "normal."

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 5:38:30 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:50:24 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:

Calling someone a "regressive" is rather nasty and impolite.

Regressive simply means someone who wants to go back to an earlier era where
things were more the way they want them to be today. Like the 1950's Father
Knows Best, or the time of Ronald Reagan.

That's not what "regressive" means nor what you meant by it; you're just trying to paper over your nasty remarks.

But as long as we're talking about "regressives," you wish to go back to the fascism of the '30s, apparently.

You also call people "liberal" and mean it as some kind of negative thing.
Again. Liberal is not a negative term, it simply means that person has a more
communitarian outlook. It does not mean communist or Nazi or dictatorship.

The sort of government that "liberals" want is exactly the sort that would be susceptible to communism and fascism. But you have not the intelligence to understand that.

"Liberal" has become so negative, that you have taken to calling yourselves "progressive," not that any of you are making any kind of "progress."

But all it does is make the whole lot of you sound like a bunch of ********** adolescents.

Your tone is, as always, one of arrogance and intolerance of opposing views. You hold those with whom you disagree to higher standards than you do for those with whom you agree.

That's your view, and you are welcome to it, since this is a free country.

It's not just my view, it's a fact.

And you need to drop that "project" nonsense out of your vocabulary; it makes you sound like a ninth-grader.

You certainly do project. Perhaps you don't know what it means. Projection:
projecting your own failings onto someone else.

You complain about CO2 emissions, yet fly, unnecessarily, to other continents. You are a hypocrite, therefore you "project." You should be more careful what you write.

Just stating facts.

Yes indeed, that's what I was doing.

No, you were not.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:24:31 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:59:33 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 12:10:29 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:46:03 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

A school not teaching evolution for religious reasons is the equivalent of
a madrassa.

As a kid, I sort of taught myself evolution, astronomy, geology, etc., by
reading books and encyclopedias about those subjects on my own. Most of
my classmates also seemed to have a good grasp of science.

If your school had taught creation science things might be different.

It wouldn't have mattered. I would still have been reading my science
books, encyclopedias, magazines,...looking through my microscope, hiking
in the woods, etc.,

So you support the teaching of creation science then?

How the **** would you come to THAT conclusion??

You really CAN'T think!

Look above. You seem to object to my suggestion that a school not teaching
evolution for religious reasons is equivalent to a madrassa. You think
teaching creation science in schools wouldn't effect the education of
children.
The two go together.

"Not teaching evolution" does not equate to "teaching creation science."

You didn't even mention creation science at first. Go ahead, look above... everyone can see that.

I never even mentioned WHAT my school taught, only that I was self-educated on the subject of evolution.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 19:07:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I am more in favor of progress than you are. You just -call- yourself progressive.

Maybe, maybe not. But you are not a political progressive.

You are in favor of tyranny and mob rule, and restricting peoples' freedoms,
IOW a regression back to the middle ages. You think slavery is "normal."

I'm not in favor of any of these things, and I don't think slavery is
normal.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:23:32 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:
So then workers are not an asset, rather they are seen as a cost to be reduced
or dispensed with. I wonder who then will buy the products of these kinds of
industries.

I think this might be called the "Henry Ford fallacy". A business can't succeed
by paying its employees higher wages, and then selling its product to those
same employees.

Companies can, and do, succeed by beating others in price competition by
reducing labor costs. Take Wal-Mart, for example.

And Apple is often derided for making products just for the rich - but its
plants in the U.S. were highly automated, and now it gets a lot of its products
made for it in China.

As far as any one individual company is concerned, minimizing labor costs is
the only rational choice. Seeing to it that the country as a whole is not
impoverished, that ordinary working people have good opportunities, although it
is in part an incidental result of free enterprise, is not a responsibility of
businessmen. If it needs to be somebody's responsibility, because the
"invisible hand" isn't doing a good enoug job, then it will be the
responsibility of the government.

And why would free enterprise create jobs if every businessman is trying to use
as little labor as possible?

Because not wasting money on hiring more people than you need to make stuff...
doesn't mean hiring _no_ people. Instead, it means that labor is more
productive. So if everyone were still employed under such a circumstance, it
would mean that more stuff is being made, so everyone is richer!

That, of course, presumes enough demand for what is being produced, and enough
capital to provide the needed productive facilities.

John Savard