The US Election

[amateur51]

For example to be "anti-science" in general is a silly position to take; to be "wary of some aspects of science and research" is, I'd argue, a very sensible precaution. I'm also not sure that home-schooling is a particularly good thing, yet I believe that there are certainly cases where the attitudes in some schools need to be looked at carefully.

Why be 'wary .. of some aspects'?.

No proper scientist can ask for more than that people are critical of all science - think it through, test out the hypothesis and the results obtained and then revisit the hypothesis and submit your criticism.

[Pabmusic]

Why be 'wary .. of some aspects'?.

No proper scientist can ask for more than that people are critical of all science - think it through, test out the hypothesis and the results obtained and then revisit the hypothesis and submit your criticism.

How true, Ams. It's a bit like posting on these boards.

[amateur51]

How true, Ams. It's a bit like posting on these boards.

Adnams Broadside

[Pabmusic]

Adnams Broadside

Yes, please...

[Flosshilde]

I'll be glad when it's all over. I wonder if the USA media devote as much time to covering our general elections? (I don't really - I'm pretty sure the answer is no.) & I look forward () to similar coverage of the next election for the Chancellor in Germany, who could have as much, if not more, impact on the UK.

[Simon]

I am probably not qualified to comment on the theology of your last paragraph, other than to say that there are more than 20,000 Christian denominations, each of them believing (I assume) that they are the true religion.

Thank you, Pab. And I'm not qualified to comment on how many so-called Christian denominations there are! I suppose you could be right. I could set up myself as a Christian "leader" and promote all kinds of wacky beliefs, and no doubt if I appealed to enough peoples' prejudices, I'd attract "followers". But irrespective of what I called myself, and how many people I convinced, if they didn't align with the teachings of Christ, they wouldn't be Christian at all, would they?

My mother had a saying - "by their actions you shall know them" - no doubt versions of which we have all heard and which undoubtedly are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, which I expect could be summarized along the lines of "judge by what people achieve in their lives, not by what they say or how often they show themselves praying."

[Serial_Apologist]

Thank you, Pab. And I'm not qualified to comment on how many so-called Christian denominations there are! I suppose you could be right. I could set up myself as a Christian "leader" and promote all kinds of wacky beliefs, and no doubt if I appealed to enough peoples' prejudices, I'd attract "followers".

That's an intriguing suggestion, Simon. Set oneself up as leader of a fanatical, reactionary organisation or cult. It's easy enough to trot out the platitudes, after all - they need little further explanation since, as ahinton has proved admirably to sheer exhaustion, the status quo, like the devil you know, is always arguable as against the unknown or, supposedly, the proven and condemned.

But irrespective of what I called myself, and how many people I convinced, if they didn't align with the teachings of Christ, they wouldn't be Christian at all, would they?

My mother had a saying - "by their actions you shall know them" - no doubt versions of which we have all heard and which undoubtedly are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, which I expect could be summarized along the lines of "judge by what people achieve in their lives, not by what they say or how often they show themselves praying."

Hmm - on second thoughts you could always simply put your faults down to human fallibility... I'm not so sure I could live with that...

[Flosshilde]

But irrespective of what I called myself, and how many people I convinced, if they didn't align with the teachings of Christ, they wouldn't be Christian at all, would they?

Umm - doesn't that basically condemn all the Christian churches & sects? - with the possible exception of the Quakers.

[Demetrius]

I'll be glad when it's all over. I wonder if the USA media devote as much time to covering our general elections? (I don't really - I'm pretty sure the answer is no.) & I look forward () to similar coverage of the next election for the Chancellor in Germany, who could have as much, if not more, impact on the UK.

If that happens, you have my sympathies. That will be one of the most boring and unimportant elections in history.

[Flosshilde]

You think Angela Merkel is unimportant?

[Nick Armstrong]

Yes, please...

Oh me too please! My round next...

[Simon]

Umm - doesn't that basically condemn all the Christian churches & sects? - with the possible exception of the Quakers.

I don't know enough about them all to say - but I agree with the general, basic tenet of your argument. That's why I don't have much to do with organised religious groups.

Although many "organisations" pay lip service to a religion, in practice they don't always act it out and indeed seem to do evil rather than good. Examples that come to mind are in Christianity, the Inquisition, and in Islam, the Taliban.

[Simon]

Hmm - on second thoughts you could always simply put your faults down to human fallibility... I'm not so sure I could live with that...

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. S-A, or how it links to my own post.

[Dave2002]

Scares the **** out of me to think that Romney might win. Janet Daley thinks he will. I just hope she's wrong.

[amateur51]

Scares the **** out of me to think that Romney might win. Janet Daley thinks he will. I just hope she's wrong.

Few finer sights I imagine than Janet Daley looking disappointed - I can dream, can't I?