Rainbow crosswalks?

Of course, I meant as a whole. The point is all atheists are not part of a group like those that believe in a god are part of a group.

And yet the same majority exists with respect to climate, and you dismiss it or explain it away as a global conspiracy.

So what is it?

You must be delusional if you think there’s a supermajority of scientists who believe in man-caused global warming. I know the left touts it as a “consensus”, but it’s ANYTHING but.

The truth is that a supermajority of scientists who claim to believe in man-caused global warming ARE NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Thet are coerced into signing on out of fear of political persecution, ostracizement from their scientific community and possibly their jobs.

1 Like

Not all Theists are in a group. If we’re making apples to apples comparisons, unaffiliated theists are equally real.

So is nondenominational-ism.

That is absolutely false.

The list I gave you is relevant today but also at any time in the last 30 years, Trump has certainly forced the Left to drop their efforts at appearing less extreme in public but nothing that they embrace and attack today is different from anytime in my adult life.

I am sure you would but there would be no biological or scientific basis for your argument, humans reproduce humans; that is what pregnancy is and there is no option “B”.

How about just listing 3 things that Trump has done since taking office that evangelicals and conservatives would have “railed against” if a Democrat had done them.

I will make you a deal just to prove that your accusation only applies to your side; I will list 3 examples of your side “railing” about Trump for things they never made a peep about when their side did them for every one example that you can provide of evangelicals and conservatives holding their tounge for party loyalty.

Most on my side do not excuse hypocrisy in the Republican Party, we Primary our hypocrites and try to remove them from power; that is how Trump won the Presidency.

The fact is that your side is the side that never cleans house, there is simply no position too extreme, no crime too shocking and no hypocrisy too obvious for democrats to say “This is too far, we must get rid of this if we are to preserve our integrity”.

No, the real difference is that Christians don’t try to force Atheists at the point of a government gun to shut up and hide their opinions; because Christians do not fear the opinions of Atheists.

It’s absolutely true, you just never looked into it.

Can’t blame me for making efforts you didn’t. The information isn’t just something Catholics know.
Just goes to show that some protestants really do live in bubbles, where they don’t bother to learn how the Jews approached scripture. They just make assumptions, and never ask.

You are free to believe any heresy you like but it won’t make the Apostle Paul any less than a rock solid Jew educated in the best religious schools in the Jewish Faith his entire life until his encounter with Christ.

Of course your belief that scripture is “metaphysical assumption” allows for anything you like to “be true” I suppose.

You mean the Jews are, because it’s a Jew who brought attention to this.

Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. A Jewish Biblical Scholar and researcher on Semitic linguistics.

Of course you think it’s heresy; they approach the Bible differently than you do. What part of that did you not get?

How would your all knowing voice of all things Jewish know how I “approach the bible”?

You claimed that Paul contradicted the scripture and set a precedent for Christianity that means we all are interpreting what the Bible says about civil justice differently than how Jewish scholars would interpret those same scriptures; that is completely false and so ridiculous that only a person who is entirely dependent upon hearsay would utter such nonsense.

Might as well quit talking sense on the subject (to him, at least), he isn’t gonna hear it.

Going back to the original question, crosswalks are met to warn drivers that pedestrians may walking in that area, day, night, dusk or dawn. White, reflective markings are the best way to make that easily discernible for drivers. Anything that blunts the effectiveness of that purpose, is counterproductive. If it is done to please some pressure group to satisfy their politically correct agenda, that is counterproductive to public safety.

1 Like

How do you know more than a Jewish man, whose a Biblical scholar, how the Jews approach the Old Testament?

Sorry, RET, not buying it. You got this one wrong.

I don’t know if there’s a majority claiming this, but it sure isn’t a supermajority, as others have pointed out. Further, there’s little outside of altruism to gain by claiming that life begins at conception, and a WHOLE LOT to claim otherwise as Planned (un)Parenthood does; ditto the global warming claims. There’s a lot of political clout and money to be had on the left side of those arguments.

Take the people that study climate, I mean acctually write papers and put their findings under the scrutiny of others that are qualified to critique it, yes there is a supermajority.

Do you really believe that? No, there is a global faith that has, in relatively recent times, tied itself inexorably, to this issue. Just as it was taken as faith that the earth revolved around the sun and how people were punished for believing otherwise. There was no “altruisim” there, but a vested interest in being right. Just as there is with the issue of abortion.

Sure, I don’t deny that there are some in the science community that are motivated by money. And there is no question that money taints the process. However, science corrects for this in the way that it is approached. Science has always moved closer to better understanding. How do we know this, because good science leads to better predictions. Furthermore, the idea that there is a global conspiracy in the realm of climate science is ridiculous. In science, one of the best ways to get recognition is to prove the status quo wrong. There have been several attempts to prove current climate theories wrong. One of the most promising was a theory that stated that (I’m loosely quoting here because I don’t remember exactly) energy that the earth passes through on its a way through space was “seeding” clouds and causing changes in weather.

Point is, science isn’t perfect. The information age has made things better and worse, but one thing that hasn’t happened is corruption on a worldwide scale the likes of which modern history has never seen.

Before I answer, why does it have to be limited to his time in office? If a Dem had the sort of past Trump has, they wouldn’t care if he was a saint in office, they would still rail against him.

I mean, if a woman running for President had, in her past, had an abortion, you don’t think that would be an issue for evangelicals? Isn’t having an abortion, even if it happens before a person takes office tacit support for abortion? Evangelicals would have plenty to say about it, before during and after a President male or female that had or was a party to an abortion. And it wouldn’t matter that it happened before a presidency.

I hear differently.

The point is, the biologists honestly believe they’re right. And again, a supermajority, and there’s no money to bribe them to “believe” that way.

Not so the global warmists; the government money’s there, and some have been caught falsifying the data.

Not when politics taints it.


I never claimed any of that, you claimed that HE knew how I approached the scripture; I asked YOU how he could know that.

And of course I knew when I asked that you would have no answer since you are arguing entirely on the basis of hearsay… Like always.