Meteorite falls in Russia's Chelyabinsk region

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Who cares what the people subject to it believe?

Or for that matter anyone who posted an opinion in this thread.

[Sava]

various dashcam footage from the meteor

[Sava]

Backwards damned country.

At least they don't blame sh1t like that on gay people.

[Hauldren Collider]

Actually, Russia is way more homophobic than the US. http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/2...issing-is-icky!

[SlowwHand]

Sava rattles without saying anything; kind of like MOBIUS.

[Sava]

It's going to be funny watching you cry when the Hispanic population turns Texas blue in a few years.

[snoopy369]

Any chance we could have just _one_ thread without it turning into a religious or political debate? =/

[Sava]

Any chance we could have just _one_ thread without it turning into a religious or political debate? =/

shameless thread promotion

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/202132-low-gravity-and-chivalry-medieval-warfare-make-life-worth-living

[snoopy369]

I think of you every time I drive by Sawa's Old Warsaw. Smorgasbord

[Sava]

I think of you every time I drive by Sawa's Old Warsaw. Smorgasbord

Menu looks good

dammit i hate the suburbs

[MichaeltheGreat]

Congratulations. You join the list of the intolerant as well. When speaking to matters of someone's faith and their belief in a divine that can cause any series of events, it is intolerant to say things like "demonstrable and wrong". From a purely scientific view, you may be correct. However, what does science have to do with faith? They are nearly opposite ideas. Certainly you are free to think and feel as you wish. Equally certain, in my mind, is the obligation for you to respect that feeling for others when it comes to matters of faith.

Now, in matters that deal with non-faith issues, I believe that good debate is stimulating (in most cases). In matters of insulting someone elses religious beliefs, I think you lessen yourself by doing so. Simply disagreeing is fine, but calling someone's religious beliefs stupid is quite another thing.

Not necessarily. The former top religious official in Saudi Arabia condemned the teaching that the earth rotates or that it revolves around the sun. Flat earthers derived their views starting in the 19th century from literal biblical interpretation. Should we give those views respect or deference because they're based on religious interpretation?

I think the distinction occurs when "faith" is used to deny provable events, repeatedly demonstrable phyical processes, etc. "God did it this way" is a lot different than "there's a God and he set these things in motion" - Biblical creationists have to deny, distort, reinterpret in provably incorrect ways, ignore those disproofs if anyone is inclined to bother, then insert their own explanations without any actual testing or validation. Whether that's intellectual dishonesty, or lack of intellect, should it get any deference if it's "religious?" What about L. Ron Hubbards "Thetans" and all that made up ****? What about conspiracy theories (truthers, moon landing hoaxers, etc.)? If I cloak it in a "religion" does it somehow become less ridiculous? I don't agree with labelling all religious people or beliefs as stupid, but I don't shy away from treating as stupid or dishonest beliefs which are completely contrary to mounds of repeatedly tested evidence.

[MichaeltheGreat]

At least they don't blame sh1t like that on gay people.

It's only been a day. Clearly it's a sign from God to quit slacking off and stone some sodomites for the Rodina.

[Sava]

mmmmm sodomy

[SlowwHand]

ANY thread is going to get jacked into religion, gayness or political.

[Elok]

If YEC proponents just had a little more imagination/education, there'd be no answer to them besides plain ol' Occam's razor. Speed of light? Radioactive decay? What, you don't think God kept all those numbers constant all this time, do you? No, not to fool us or anything, just for the hell of it...why not?