should individual businesses have the right to pick and chose who they serve?
if a muslim decides he won't bake the cake of a radical zionist that says "reclaim the temple in jerusalem" should the government be allowed to punish the muslim baker?
maybe you can help me understand the issues more clearly because were becoming hyper-sensitive and soon your going to need a handbook what's the proper thing to say.
The law aside, (which is quite clear, btw...), I even knew many JWs that owned businesses and performed work for churches, performed wedding services, such as photography in churches, etc., years ago. Even hardcore JWs understood the law, and complied.
This should be a non-issue at the state legislation level. The1993 Freedom of Religion Act, has been highjacked and twisted for a use that it was never intended for, by right wing nutjobs, who know nothing of history or the Constitution.
d4g
the wt study (feb study edition) for today stated "the jews had established a pattern.
of worship.
they regularly met together.
I am not sure if the pre-Christian era Jews met regularly or not, and equally sure the WT does not know either. However, that has never stopped them from cherry picking bible verses to make their point.
The WT at best tries to present itself outwardly as "Christian", but would much rather use the OT to enforce their rhetoric. Too many conflicting messages in the NT for them. The "friendlier" parts of the NT just do not sit well with the JW leadership.
It's all crap anyway.
d4g
religious institutions have survived by controlling what their adherents know, argues tufts prof. daniel c. dennett, but today that is next to impossible.
illustration: brian stauffer for the wall street journal.
by daniel c. dennett.
TheOldHippie: But is it the future of religion, religious feelings, or the future of organized religion, of organizations?
Social evolution, (what this article is really about), would have it that all of these memes will eventually fade out. Likely in this order: Organizations, then religion, (as a general meme).
Ultimately, "religious" feelings would evolve to a less strictly defined "spiritual", set of personal belief, since no enforcing agency to control personal belief would exist.
d4g
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
Can I copy your answers for the next exam?😇
Gladly, in exchange for your wit...
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
I haven't even figured out radio waves and now I gotta figure out electricity as well😦.
Actually Sparrow, radio waves are electricity...
d4g
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
Are some of you suggesting that just because I don't understand all the science, it doesn't mean that it isn't true?
It is about understanding scientific method, (or at least what it is). If that can be understood, it will provide a basis for understanding the reasoning of why something is considered fact. And yes, in science a theory is also factual. (Not absolute truth...It is a big no-no to even say the word "truth" in scientific circles).
d4g
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
To believe is to accept something as true, with the inference that it is not empirically or even anecdotally provable.
Accepting the theory of electricity requires no belief because it can be tested for and observed. It can be accepted as factual with empirical evidence of its existence.
Evolution can be tested for, and observed, albeit not as obviously to the average person. This also with empirical evidence of its reality.
So, neither requires belief.
Precisely why no one would ever ask the question concerning electricity, right?
Why refer to such lines of questioning such as "for those that believe in evolution" then?
d4g
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Why ?
Both are unanswerable questions silly.
But of course science not today but tomorrow will figure it all for us. Progress is being made. Blah blah blah. We have big thick books with really complex answers.
So simple answers are always correct?
It find it funny how the pro-science crowd often seems to be bigger deists than religious people.
This proves you do not understand science at all. Science is not about having all of the answers not about even potentially finding them all. It is about open questioning and exploration without biased presuppositions, mostly. Theists cannot do this, because all lines of argumentation must affirm their belief. As I stated earlier, if we just started with the proper definition of the term belief, there would be no debate to begin with.
d4g
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
I hate when people spew philosophy and pretend they are doing it in the name of a scientific debate. This thread is nothing but pointless fluff.
Can you back that up?
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
The very definition of belief implies there is no proof. Believers cannot quite their head around this fact in of itself, hence why the endless questions of "what is belief", questions predicated on "for those who believe in evolution", etc. It is almost as if belief is a requirement of something being factual to believers. It is almost impossible to debate someone who is not defining the very meaning of the term the same way, but that is another story...
If they just understood the simple fact they had no proof to begin with, there would be no debate at all. What this really comes down to is debating the definition of the term, which in reality is not open to any debate.
Thus your frustration, and why no proof is ever offered for such claims.
d4g
