Granted, even though it is ironic that the governmental costs to administer NGO “good works” with our tax dollars often exceed the costs of the works themselves. Anyway, welcome to you Kaleigh and we expect some good news out of Canada. God bless the Queen, nevertheless, who is probably the only class act in government these days.
Granted, even though it is ironic that the governmental costs to administer NGO “good works” with our tax dollars often exceed the costs of the works themselves.
I don’t agree with that statement in context of the programs I am addressing. The very fact that these corporations are Non-profit, allows for the maximum distribution of actual value to the recipients of those programs.
Contrast this with our current healthcare system. The For-profit Health insurance companies are in business to make a profit, which is demonstarted by the vulgar bonuses (billions) pocketed by their CEO’s.
Thus the private for-profit administrative costs are much much greater than those of non-profits. If we had a universal healthcare system administered by a non-profit corporation, we would save billions of dollars which could then be spent on actual health care delivery, not on administrative costs + profit.
My point is that her argument may be accurate, and I can most likely conjure up enough coordinating data in my mind to corroborate that, but it is not precise. Good scientific thinking demands both accuracy and precision.
I would also think that empirical scientific evidence would be a key point as well….......being able to have many people all observe something and agree on what they see? Geologists have found fossils of sea life miles above sea level - as the tectonic plates converge and diverge the earth is creating new ocean, new mountain shields…....... however by observations made over the past hundreds of years - we have seen that this process happens very slowly. There is physical evidence that has proven the earth much much MUCH older than 6000 years…..
To contrast, what evidence does religion (any religion) have to refute this?
I’m not saying that people should believe in evolution because I say so or some group or organization says so. They should believe it because ultimately the EVIDENCE proves it. The people who say they don’t believe in evolution are doing more than just disputing and questioning evolution. They say, no, I believe that evolution is not true.
My point is that her argument may be accurate, and I can most likely conjure up enough coordinating data in my mind to corroborate that, but it is not precise. Good scientific thinking demands both accuracy and precision.
I would also think that empirical scientific evidence would be a key point as well….......being able to have many people all observe something and agree on what they see? Geologists have found fossils of sea life miles above sea level - as the tectonic plates converge and diverge the earth is creating new ocean, new mountain shields…....... however by observations made over the past hundreds of years - we have seen that this process happens very slowly. There is physical evidence that has proven the earth much much MUCH older than 6000 years…..
To contrast, what evidence does religion (any religion) have to refute this?
Why would religion need to refute that? Except for some religious perspectives that hold a very strict view of a (very silly) historical account, scientific observation and religious spirituality are not mutually exclusive. Like I mentioned before, most of mainline Christianity (globally) acknowledges that evolutionary theory is by far the best means we have of explaining the diversity of the universe.
Why would religion need to refute that? Except for some religious perspectives that hold a very strict view of a (very silly) historical account, scientific observation and religious spirituality are not mutually exclusive. Like I mentioned before, most of mainline Christianity (globally) acknowledges that evolutionary theory is by far the best means we have of explaining the diversity of the universe.
If we agree that about 46 percent of Americans don’t believe in evolution (they are not open to the idea of admitting that evolution could be true)(Congressmen openly admit to not believing in evolution so they must believe the poll numbers), that’s a pretty big percentage. If most mainline churches acknowledge evolutionary theory, then why are so many people so resistant to it? I agree, they don’t need to refute evolution to be religious. They’re picking a very difficult yet unnecessary battle.
Why would religion need to refute that? Except for some religious perspectives that hold a very strict view of a (very silly) historical account, scientific observation and religious spirituality are not mutually exclusive. Like I mentioned before, most of mainline Christianity (globally) acknowledges that evolutionary theory is by far the best means we have of explaining the diversity of the universe.
If we agree that about 46 percent of Americans don’t believe in evolution (they are not open to the idea of admitting that evolution could be true)(Congressmen openly admit to not believing in evolution so they must believe the poll numbers), that’s a pretty big percentage. If most mainline churches acknowledge evolutionary theory, then why are so many people so resistant to it? I agree, they don’t need to refute evolution to be religious. They’re picking a very difficult yet unnecessary battle.
Because of the dominance of the Evangelical/Baptist voice in American media, rather than the moderation of the mainliners. What we would refer to as Christian fundamentalism essentially started in the U.S., so I guess it is more a part of a lot of people’s cultural and personal history than abroad.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that is a huge problem…but the problem isn’t with “theists” or with “religious people,” it is an error about the way that these folks are even considering their own faith. Daniel Radosh wrote this really cool book a few years ago where he kind of went “deep cover” into the christian subculture around the nation, seeking to understand it better. In the end he concluded that it was vitally important for us to engender dialogue with the more moderate elements of the evangelical crowd, because that’s where we were going to begin to be able to effect change in the political, social, and environmental realms. I highly recommend this book on the basis of it being one of the most hilarious (and sometimes sad) things that I have ever read.
Rapture Ready by Daniel Radosh. This is an interactive website, and pretty funny too.
One year I went each Sunday to a different church in my local community. I noticed that the more conservative/fundamentalist churches were packed with people and young people and the moderate/liberal churches were older with a lot of empty seats. I’ve heard other sources report the same phenomenon. The churches that take the Bible more literally have an appeal that the churches that dismiss the accuracy of the Bible don’t have. Evolution diminishes the power of the Bible even if churches do accept evolution. The fundamentalist churches know this.
I have a mild request for everyone. I realize that hitting the quote button may mean adding a very long post when you only want to respond to a specific section of it. It’s easy to block off that section and copy it to your post, however, the thing that’s missing for the readers is knowing who made the initial comment. When you do that, could you add, before the quoted part something like “Quoting ______:” then copy the section?
this is definately the best place to come when searching for the answers to your questions because people listen and respond in a positive way and give there opinion instead of trying to label everything with true or false and right and wrong, people generally look for places such as this because they cant stand how ignorant and close minded people are around them, places like this where you can express yourself are the way forward to a better future
do you believe that there is one universal truth that can describe how everything is connected something that everything thing in existence has in common? ?
do you believe that there is one universal truth that can describe how everything is connected something that everything thing in existence has in common? ?
Yeah, I understand. It took me a while to get familiar with how the forum worked. It just seemed like so much information I didn’t know where to start or where to go. I’m pretty comfortable with it now.
