Can we all agree that violence -- whether from the Left or from the Right -- should be Condemned?

[Kilgore Trout]

Violence should always be condemned. I don't see it as a political or partisan issue. Other than, people who are highly political or partisan seem to often be more self-justified when they commit it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Can we at the very least all agree that violence -- any violence -- whether from the Left or from the Right -- should be unequivocally condemned by everyone of us?

Of course not, I find this to be very naive.

If not for violence the USA wouldn't even exist.

 

[Acim]

I do not condemn violence.

Would you please elaborate on this? I can't say that I disagree with what you may be getting at. If you prefer to PM me your explanation, I'm down with that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

state enforced atheism failed in the USSR and communist China, killing millions of men, women and children on the way.

No amount of violence and intolerance will ever silence free thinking humanity.

Has nothing to do with religious freedom or atheism. It has to do with science vs pseudo science. I couldn't care less what people believe in the privacy of their own homes so long as it doesn't leak out into the daily lives of others. I do have a distinct and significant problem when people try to push private religious beliefs on others ESPECIALLY so when they attempt to dictate fact.

I know you are an avid science denier so we won't be able to see eye to eye on this but that doesn't change the science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Has nothing to do with religious freedom or atheism. It has to do with science vs pseudo science. I couldn't care less what people believe in the privacy of their own homes so long as it doesn't leak out into the daily lives of others. I do have a distinct and significant problem when people try to push private religious beliefs on others ESPECIALLY so when they attempt to dictate fact.

I know you are an avid science denier so we won't be able to see eye to eye on this but that doesn't change the science.

like Piltdown man or Global cooling?

I'm sure you're also going to reprimand me for reminding you of this

"religious pseudoscience" was precisely what atheist Hoyle called the Big Bang, his mocking term for the Priest and 'science denier' George Lemaitre's primeval atom theory.

No 'science' is beyond question, the only true 'science deniers' are those people in the trash can of science history, that claimed their beliefs were beyond question

condoning acts of terrorism against beliefs different than your own, doesn't change the truth either. It only exposes your extreme bias and intolerance.

There are many things claimed as 'settled science' that I think are scientifically illiterate and even dangerous to humanity, but I wish no harm to their followers whatsoever.

That the violent intolerance of terrorism should be unequivocally condemned by all, is one thing I hold as utterly unquestionable, and I think I speak for the vast majority of us here on either side. So I'm not going to debate it with you any further.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

like Piltdown man or Global cooling?

I'm sure you're also going to reprimand me for reminding you of this

"religious pseudoscience" was precisely what atheist Hoyle called the Big Bang, his mocking term for the Priest and 'science denier' George Lemaitre's primeval atom theory.

No 'science' is beyond question, the only true 'science deniers' are those people in the trash can of science history, that claimed their beliefs were beyond question

condoning acts of terrorism against beliefs different than your own, doesn't change the truth either. It only exposes your extreme bias and intolerance

No science is beyond question. That is a golden tennant of science so to speak. I agree with that. However only evidence can change science. Religious belief does not. Religion didn't bring about any of the things above to light. Only science did.

Pittdown man was found out to be a fake because of the scientis who inspected it. Their information was based on evidence.
Global cooling was a fringe sceince topic earlier this century that was found to be wrong because the evidence didn't support it.
The big bang was found out to be true because of science. Lemaitre didn't recieve it in a religious revalation. He figured it out because he was a damn good scientist who happened to be religious as well. Nothing in his thesis mentinoed god. Nothing in the theory mentioned god. All of it was based on evidence. Rock solid evidence actually.

ID can be part of science when it shows a single iota of evidence. It has not. Evolution will be thrown out when evidence is brought to light that discredits it. This has not happened over 150 years. Parts have been found to be wrong and it was corrected. Parts of the evolutionary theory have been ammended, abandoned or corrected. And each time we have done so it has made our understanding that much more complete and that much clearer.

Every bit of change in the scientific community has been on the basis of evidence. End of story. If creationism is not currently part of science it is because it lacks the evidence.