Reply #79

In the discussion thread: How can religious moderates be said to enable hateful fundamentalists? [View all]

Response to bananas (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 20, 2012, 10:28 PM

eqfan592 (5,109 posts)

79. Wow, really???

Science is still science even if it's not called science.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

94 replies	Author	Time	Post
How can religious moderates be said to enable hateful fundamentalists? [View all]	trotsky	Apr 2012	OP
I think "enabling" is not the best choice of words	longship	Apr 2012	#1
I think "enable" is a word that puts a special focus on the problem.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#3
You have a point, but...	longship	Apr 2012	#6
I don't see it as meaning "tacit approval."	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#7
Faith is an important issue here	longship	Apr 2012	#10
No, they definitely are not actively supporting them.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#8
My bad!	longship	Apr 2012	#11
About IRS concerns? Or...? n/t	trotsky	Apr 2012	#19
About why moderates might not be standing up against religion in politics	longship	Apr 2012	#26
Oh, on that I really can't be sure.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#27
Perhaps not, but they are actively funding them...	Act_of_Reparation	Apr 2012	#83
I believe that religious moderates can enable hateful fundamentalists, but	rhett o rick	Apr 2012	#2
You say:	trotsky	Apr 2012	#4
Plus add to that the sister claim	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#5
Very important point.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#9
How does having faith enable bad behavior? nm	rhett o rick	Apr 2012	#14
It's not the act of having faith that enables bad behavior.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#17
Ermmm.. what?	dmallind	Apr 2012	#18
Faith can be used to justify bad behavior, I agree. But having faith	rhett o rick	Apr 2012	#66
I think we have a tail and dog issue here	dmallind	Apr 2012	#12
It's not just wrong, it's hate speech, and it's stupid.	bananas	Apr 2012	#13
Now, now, you're not supposed to call beliefs stupid.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#15
As I pointed out, you can replace "faith" with just about anything	bananas	Apr 2012	#29
You sure can. Just as you can substitute a pear for an apple in an apple pie.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#35
No, religious faith doesn't close that off. nt	bananas	Apr 2012	#37
OK, go convince Fred Phelps he's wrong.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#39
What piffle	dmallind	Apr 2012	#16
Wrong.	bananas	Apr 2012	#30
Modern eugenics, genetic engineering, and ethical re-evaluation	bananas	Apr 2012	#32
You either didn't read or didn't understand your own "rebuttal". It makes my point perfectly!	dmallind	Apr 2012	#34
Why do they believe genetic composition of a population can be improved?	bananas	Apr 2012	#41
........	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#45
Your coin came down on the wrong side I see. Bad luck.	dmallind	Apr 2012	#53
rofl - the concept of earth was around long before geography as a science. nt	bananas	Apr 2012	#59
Wow, really???	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#79
Thoroughgoing religious liberalism in no way enables fundamentalism.	E_Pluribus_Unitarian	Apr 2012	#20
Again, no one is equating the beliefs.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#23
This is a variation on the assertion in a recent thread that:	LTX	Apr 2012	#21
No one is saying that religious beliefs are identical.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#22
But faith is a valid justification for all beliefs, whether religious or not.	LTX	Apr 2012	#24
I don't think religious faith is a valid justification for any belief.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#25
Actually, yes.	LTX	Apr 2012	#31
Great post! Religion does indeed evolve, and believers evolve, too.	kwassa	Apr 2012	#33
and also use imaginary father figures as a symbol yes	dmallind	Apr 2012	#36
And I'll add that those made-up sources	LTX	Apr 2012	#42
That's a gigantic caveat you just tried to tack on innocuously at the end there!	trotsky	Apr 2012	#43
Not really.	LTX	Apr 2012	#49
Absolutely	dmallind	Apr 2012	#55
Of course, I never said they couldn't. So bully for the brilliant dispatch of that straw man.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#46
Actually, no.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#38
So give me your definition of faith.	LTX	Apr 2012	#44
Religious faith.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#47
It can be a justification for both.	LTX	Apr 2012	#52
There you go muddling the definitions again.	trotsky	Apr 2012	#56
Valid point, but taken too far I think	dmallind	Apr 2012	#57
I agree for the most part with your statement that:	LTX	Apr 2012	#68
I disagree with this also	kwassa	Apr 2012	#73
I think thete is a difference	rrneck	Apr 2012	#28
How you ask? Probably	humblebum	Apr 2012	#40
"Oh, do elaborate", he said as he put on his wading boots. nt	rrneck	Apr 2012	#48
What is there to elaborate on? I merely responded with	humblebum	Apr 2012	#50
Well, you could elaborate on your opinion.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#51
Ah, good. Knee boots are more comfortable. nt	rrneck	Apr 2012	#54
So given the fact that groups of freethinkers/skeptics/atheists and individuals gave their open	humblebum	Apr 2012	#58
Except we have this thing called the Constitution.	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#60
I was not aware that the Constitution had any teeth outside of the Unites States, and	humblebum	Apr 2012	#61
I am talking about what we are doing here.	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#63
You are just kinda throwing out all sorts of straw men	humblebum	Apr 2012	#64
"limited separation"	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#67
I would certainly question your grasp of American history and in particular	humblebum	Apr 2012	#70
In short, because you've never heard of organizations like	LTX	Apr 2012	#84
I've heard about Americans United.	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#87
I see. You don't know the history of	LTX	Apr 2012	#88
pssst. There used to be and "O" in the acronym, too.	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#89
Right. Which just proves	LTX	Apr 2012	#91
You are misunderstanding a lot of arguments in this thread	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#92
Oh, I haven't missed the point of thread.	LTX	Apr 2012	#93
Faith in Constitution... nt	tama	Apr 2012	#71
Whatever.	Goblinmonger	Apr 2012	#72
Faith in word games	tama	Apr 2012	#75
Id didnt work	rrneck	Apr 2012	#62
Never said it did work. I said "attempted" eradication. nt	humblebum	Apr 2012	#65
Then don't worry about it. nt	rrneck	Apr 2012	#69
Christianity has been reforming for two thousand years and continues to reform	Leontius	Apr 2012	#74
The 1950s called.	2ndAmForComputers	Apr 2012	#77
And 20s 30s 40s 60s 70s 80s and today. nt	humblebum	Apr 2012	#80
Making heavy use of helicopters painted in the color black, I'm sure.	2ndAmForComputers	Apr 2012	#76
You called?	onager	Apr 2012	#78
And that is a vile and bigoted suggestion	LeftishBrit	Apr 2012	#82
OK, I think it is wrong and here's why.	LeftishBrit	Apr 2012	#81
I don't believe you understood what the point of the quote was.	eqfan592	Apr 2012	#85
+1 nt	mr blur	Apr 2012	#94
But is isn't that simple when there's money involved	Act_of_Reparation	Apr 2012	#86
Not exactly.	kwassa	Apr 2012	#90

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.