Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Mickey Maus (Score 2) 359

a not insignificant number of the actual protestors are paid, too, about $25 via craigslist,

Care to show some actual examples of said ads with people answering them?
I marched in a local Women's March. No one I knew was being paid, or had been approached about being paid. I certainly wasn't. There were thousands of people there. There was ZERO indication of anyone paying for protests. Instead, you have a diverse group of people with individual concerns(ranging from pro-choice beliefs to local Native American tribes showing solidarity with the pipeline protesters, and pretty much everything in between). No one was confused about their message. No one was rioting, either. But I suppose people protesting against Republican policies doesn't fit the "Trump gets mandate from American People" meme.

Comment Re:What about electrical, plumbing etc? (Score 1) 315

I doubt very much you are allowed to do your or gas, electrical or plumbing.

When I bought my first house, it was a fixer upper($1000 house with a nice lot right out of high school == win). I redid the gas, electrical and plumbing. And the roof, the drywall, the windows, the doors, a new water heater, flooring, a new central heat & air system, etc.
I had to have it inspected(like the leak test for the gas lines), but I did it all myself. The only part that ever caused a problem was some old wiring that I didn't replace in the stand alone garage.
So, yeah, in most places, you can do all of that yourself.

Comment Re:Science and Christianity are NOT compatible (Score 4, Insightful) 260

They seek from the Bible inspiration, a cultural identity, etc., but not doctrine.

Well, I hate to tell you, but the vast majority of Christians would consider you to be a heretic at best. And the same would happen at any given point in the history of Christianity. Your version might be more intellectually palatable, but don't imagine for a moment that it represents a majority.

Comment Re:And so he validates the violence (Score 1) 894

No, it just puts him in the same philosophical camp as most of the civilized world, in that you should be punished for deliberately insulting someone.

I'm not sure what "civilized world" you live in, but I have no expectation of being just in striking someone for an insult, regardless of the context. When I encounter ideas and opinions I dislike, I attack them with ideas and words, not fists and weapons.

Comment Re:Only YEC denies it (Score 1) 669

If we had some objective means of determining the morality of something, we could have a scientific theory of ethics and morals.

And if the Catholic church made no formal claims about anything physical, this would be a valid critique. It is not. The church makes claims about evolutionary history(see Humani Generis, the Catechism, etc), miracles(see virtually any beatification process), mental illness(see any "possession" case), decay(see the silliness about incorruptible bodies), etc. This is ignoring such silliness as transubstantiation("this process is physical, but can't be detected pretty much by meaningless distinctions about substance and accident").

Comment Re:Only YEC denies it (Score 1) 669

The Catholic church clearly uses the scientific method when it comes to natural events.

And you miss the point. The church STARTS by asserting that a whole host of events, both historical and on-going, are not natural events. Those events are ignored in terms of the scientific method.
And they often only pay lip service to claims of scientific evaluation. It doesn't take much digging around in the miracle claims for beatification, things like eucharistic miracles and the ever present Marian visitations(just for a few random examples) to see that a lot of "evidence" is just hand-waving over dubious claims.

You use the scientific method when you want to prove or disprove natural events or processes. I don't see why you'd use it to determine if X belief is heretical to Catholicism.

Hmm, all of those papal encyclicals, catechisms and other teachings are obviously out of date, then, since they often make claims about physical processes which are very much in the area of scientific investigation. You should mention this to your bishop, so he can pass it on.

They use it when studying the stars, biology, etc.

Ah, that's why they have jettisoned the idea of a single couple as the genesis of the whole human race as it's scientifically untenable. Oh, wait, they didn't. That's defined in Humani Generis:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

So, no, a basic fact of human evolution is ignored because of its theological implications. That's not a scientific viewpoint.

Granted they may not be AS thorough and not seek to find a natural explanation for one of those events once they've exhausted what modern science can tell us.

They don't even go that far. Hell, they've even regressed in modern times, since JPII gutted the office of the Promotor fide(better known as the Devil's Advocate). It wasn't rigorous before; now it's a rubber stamp. And don't get me started on exorcisms.
I was a Catholic and active in apologetics for many years. This nonsense was a large part of what made believing in that church an untenable position.

Comment Re:No, You Don't Know What You're Talking About (Score 1) 669

I was talking about -actual- Catholic doctrine

The RCC likes to pretend that it accepts evolution. But it puts restrictions on the events(such as insisting on a single couple being the start of the human race) in such ways that it is really incompatible with science. It's just a dodge.

Comment Re:Trying hard... (Score 1) 669

Miracles aren't magic, they are occurrences with incredibly low probabilities

Well, you should explain to all of your miracle-believing friends that they are completely wrong.

The bible doesn't contradict science, although many religious people unfortunately do.

By your own logic, the bible is riddled with errors, as it supposedly documents MANY impossible, not improbable, events. It takes an almost completely figurative reading of the bible to come up with the idea that it's not contradicting science.

Comment Re:So What? (Score 1) 669

It's only useful as an argument against specific Christians who have previously invoked the Old Testament and I don't consider "The Bible says..." to be invoking the Old Testament.

In other words, it's only useful against the vast majority of Christianst. If you've studied Christianity and haven't realized that, you might want to dig a bit deeper.

Slashdot Top Deals

The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add. -- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court