View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Katelew who wrote (83233)	9/10/2008 12:57:36 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) of 542624

I'm curious, why would I want to rethink my comments about invisibility? I'm not being antagonistic- I'm just wondering why I would want to rethink a perfectly logical framework that also happens to fit my experience. Did you imagine I hadn't already taken in to account everything we've already talked about? I suspect this may be the 25th time I've talked about this on SI(and I may be seriously underestimating.) Not that it isn't interesting every time- but the same things always get said. The god spot is real. It can be scientifically replicated. cas.bellarmine.edu It is not subjective and a matter of my belief. The only thing that could make me rethink what I've said about the existence of God is some actual evidence- objective evidence. That's just the way I play. I'm not offended by your comments, but I'm a little puzzled why you think your subjective experience is something I should take in to account. I understand why you take it in to account, but I don't understand why you would think I would find it convincing, or count it as evidence in any way. Liberals obviously aren't that antagonistic to faith, since many of them are believers, and the number of agnostics and atheists is quite small. It seems to me that the person who is really antagonistic is the person who says that kids from homes that aren't religious pose a threat to other kids. That actually is unlikely. It turns out that some of the greatest predictors of disruptive behavior are 1. time in daycare at a young age 2. divorce and 3. alcoholism. Interestingly atheists and agnostics are much less likely (statistically) to get divorced- at least according to the statistics I've seen: religioustolerance.org And divorce makes alcoholism more likely: "In general, unmarried workers (divorced, separated or never married) have about twice the rate of alcoholism or alcohol abuse as married workers" alcoholism-information.com Interesting, isn't it? So a child of a born again divorced alcoholic is probably the biggest threat to someone else's children. That's not to say all born agains are a threat- but statistically speaking agnostics and atheists are probably not what you need to worry about.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next