zapatos

Did the OP claim it shouldn't be called an OOP language?

My old rugby jersey has never been seen in a lab. God has also never been seen in a lab. They have this in common. But of course trying to draw conclusions about something based on the commonality of whether or not a human has observed it by now is a foolish endeavor.

No, you are not. A law that prohibits marriage licenses to underage girls is stopping civil marriages, not religious marriages. Nothing prohibits the church from performing and recognizing a marriage ceremony for anyone they like.

Of course. All predictions are based on underlying models, and all are subject to change if we gather new information or insights. And did you just say our current model is incorrect? Can you expand on that a bit?

You have a misunderstanding of science, evidence, dark energy, and the "miracle of healing", all of which lead you to mistakenly believe there is no "rational consistency".

I think if you did a poll of those who know me best you would hear that I'm generally a good person by nature. There are a lot of obviously bad people in the world, and many of those who behave well do so because they were trained well, or because it is in their best interest. If people didn't have to worry about consequences I believe we'd have a much more honest view of others. A well respected college professor was recently recorded (much to her chagrin) telling a young family to "go back home" because they appeared to be of Asian heritage. If she could preach her beliefs to her students without fear of retribution I think she would.

My experience is that on average, people are bad by default.

I was kind of hoping you would acknowledge that your current position is similar to the one I expressed previously but in hindsight I should have passed on the opportunity to mention it. It is not a dead debate though, as you and CharonY are on this very page debating much the same thing you and I debated previously. I don't know how agreeing with your position in this thread is off topic though. As I said, I like what you stated and have believed all along that it was a good route to take.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, in a recently closed thread someone expressed nearly identical sentiments. Unfortunately this approach was repeatedly criticized for being the same, tired suggestion that was used for decades while the situation had only worsened, and what was needed instead was an approach that started with everything on the table rather than starting with the few things we can more readily get people to agree to. I wish you luck with your suggestion. It is difficult know what to do when opinions seem to change from day to day.

Indeed. The Roman Empire began its transition to Christianity in 313 AD and completed the transition in 323 AD.

touché

Awesome! I know whenever I build something I find myself staring at it every time I pass it for a couple of weeks. It's a great feeling. If you don't mind I'd love to see some pics when you get a chance. I did a bit of work this weekend too but it wasn't as cool as your project. My wife and I built a structure around her garden to keep out the bunnies and the squirrels.

Christianity

I'm sure it feels that way to you, and I'm confident you have no bad intentions, but it is sloppy language and can result in negative consequences, not the least of which is alienating those you wish to debate or convince. If I say "blacks are lazy" or "gays are perverts", even though you realize I'm not talking about all blacks or gays, I suspect I'd be challenged immediately regardless. I don't think you are necessarily saying I feel emasculated without my gun on hand. After all, you've been in this conversation long enough to realize not all gun owners are the same.

A problem with having too many of one group and not enough of another in a debate is that statements go unchallenged, and conversation drifts from reasonable, evidence-backed debate to demonizing the opposition (the above are just two samples that would benefit from a challenge). As much of a pain as I found waitforufo to be, he did serve as an anchor that kept the rest of us from drifting too far.

I'll only touch on this one, but my statement applies to all seven items. Making an assertion in response to another assertion is not 'debunking'. Until you provide some evidence and a logical argument you are simply stating one opinion to oppose another. I also suspect that for the most part you yourself made up all of the assumptions you are "debunking".

Around here red oak is cheaper, but I prefer white oak. Both will work very well for you though. We have a small piece of property and right in the middle of it, a huge Black Walnut fell. If I could figure out how to get it out of there I'd have enough walnut to last the rest of my life.

Any evidence to present?

Ah, thank you. I wasn't familiar with that term. I'll have to add this to the thread "Today I Learned...".

Children are not born with the morals that we as a society have decided are appropriate. You are right that the story is a means to convey the message, but if there are no stories, we've lost an important channel on how to pass those morals down. Relying or oral story telling with no common source will generate inconsistent results, and will likely leave out messages only recently incorporated into society.

What is a bread board?

You reminded me why I love my surface planer and random orbit sander.

Not all axioms of faith are outside the reach of science. An axiom of the Aztec religion is the nine netherworlds beneath the surface of the Earth.

Of course it can.

If you are raised Christian (like many of us here were) no one around you has any interest in sowing doubt, even if they themselves are aware. It is not until you expand your circle of influencers before you begin to understand the world as it is, and not as some would have you believe. Every five years or so I can look back in awe at how naive I was that short time ago. Five years from now you'll be shocked at some of the things you currently believe.