BSA Sexual Assault Settlement

[RollLeft 5045]

1 hour ago, CleverNickname said:

Colorado population is 5.8M. Utah is 3.2M, Arizona is 7.3M, Tennessee is 6.8M, Hawaii is 1.4M. Texas is 29M. And Texas, because it was a country, doesn't have much national forests or BLM lands. Compared to anywhere else west of the Mississippi it just doesn't have much public lands. I didn't think anyone seriously would disagree. On nice weekends in the fall/spring it is very hard to find a state campsite. There are only a handful of overnight backpacking trails in the entire state. We are something like 45 out of 50 in public lands, as a percentage of land. 

Yet here I am.  

Something like?  % of land? 

Ok i'll play.  Even if we use Massachusetts who is fifth on that list, %of land, Tx is 25th.  By your rounding error, 45/50,  TX could be at the top of the list.

Look a better argument is per capita.  Per capita Mass, who is at the top of your list, provides .03 acres per person while Texas provides .06. 

What is your argument again? 

...also nevermind that its silly to think everyone, total pop, uses these public lands, especially in Texas.  

Edited July 9, 2021 by RollLeft

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

7 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I'm not sure what's worse about evangelical atheists, the fact that they feel the need to come in and preach their religion anywhere the subject of god or gods comes up, or the fact that they can't understand that their beliefs are literally no different than those of the religious folks.

Atheism is a belief system the same way “off” is a tv channel. Why should believers get to assert their certainty in the existence of a mythical super being while those who don’t believe can’t?

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

*Because

My thesaurus lists them as synonyms. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

16 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m not sure what’s worse about scientists, the fact that they feel the need to come in and preach their facts anywhere the subject of fairytales or fairytales comes up, or the fact that they can’t understand that their facts don’t want to be recognized by anyone who believes in fairytales. 

If you think the scientific method involves asserting as fact that which is unprovable by either observation or logic, then you have an elementary understanding of science. And, yes, that applies to anyone who asserts that their unprovable beliefs are facts and that all others must be wrong, whether atheist or believer in a god or gods or really any sort of spirituality.

I believe that there is a God; whatthebuck believes there isn't. And that's fine. But I realize that my belief is based on faith and that scientifically there is no way to prove either way, so I choose to refrain from passing judgement on those who merely state that they believe something while admitting that they really have no way of knowing whether or not it is true other than faith or a gut feeling or whatever.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Atheism is a belief system the same way “off” is a tv channel. Why should believers get to assert their certainty in the existence of a mythical super being while those who don’t believe can’t?

They shouldn't. 

[F250 28788]

On 7/5/2021 at 8:38 AM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

You do realize that Baptist churches are all independent, right?

In theory. In reality no. Do you recall the purges in the SBC during the 80s/90s? "Ohhh you want to differ from the convention of "independent" churches? Well get the fuck out of our Non-denominational Denominational organization.

lulz just because they are locally congregational doesn't make them independent.

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Were they purges or splits? I wasn't born until the mid 80's so I obviously don't recall that era, but from what I have read and heard it was more of a conservative wing of the SBC methodically consolidating power over a period of time and those that disagreed choosing to split off and form their own conventions. I don't believe that the SBC has ever really held any real power (or at least anything comparable to non congregationalist denominations) over the local churches other than peer pressure. The congregational model kinda lends itself nicely to forming splits, much more than others. Anyhow, if you have any resources or whatever that say otherwise I'd be interested in looking into them. I haven't been involved with any Baptist church for quite some time, but I do find the history of how it got to where it is fascinating. 

Edit: I do know that about fifteen years ago they were requiring IMB missionaries to sign and affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. The younger folks I talked to who were involved with missions weren't really happy about that because it basically made it a creede.

Edited July 10, 2021 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[F250 28788]

My oldest two did Cub Scouts and earned their Arrow of Light award. Did a very brief term in Boy Scouts. We went hiking one weekend and it started off fun as we cruised up the trail. After a while I noticed most of the scouts and the accompanying adults were huffing and puffing and really slowing things down. By this point in their lives my kids were heavily involved in baseball and football and the contrast between the athletics and scouts was night and day. I  took them out of the Boy Scouts after that afternoon. Bunch of out of shape nerds in Scouting.

 

 

[F250 28788]

1 minute ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Were they purges or splits? I wasn't born until the mid 80's so I obviously don't recall that era, but from what I have read and heard it was more of a conservative wing of the SBC methodically consolidating power over a period of time and those that disagreed choosing to split off and form their own conventions. I don't believe that the SBC has ever really held any real power (or at least anything comparable to non congregationalist denominations) over the local churches other than peer pressure. The congregational model kinda lends itself nicely to forming splits, much more than others. Anyhow, if you have any resources or whatever that say otherwise I'd be interested in looking into them. I haven't been involved with any Baptist church for quite some time, but I do find the history of how it got to where it is fascinating. 

They were purges.

 

I guess you could call them splits if forcing out "liberal" congregations after spending years demonizing them and basically forcing them out is what you would call a split. I was there for it and it was a purge. The liberals didn't leave willingly.

My family were Wesleyan-Arminians and definitely on the wrong side of that purge. Found shelter in the UMC which was a better fit since the SBC is schizophrenic on their ability to establish a coherent theology.

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

since the SBC is schizophrenic on their ability to establish a coherent theology.

 

Lol, I can't disagree there. But that's actually supposed to be a feature, not a bug. The general idea was supposed to be that they don't all have to agree on all the minute details, but as long as they could agree on most of the major stuff they could work together. Clearly that's not so much the case anymore, but it never really was completely the case in the first place. Otherwise they would realize that they really have more in common with the Catholic Church than they would like to admit. Several hundred years of conflict and outright war makes that a hard pill to swallow, however. Anyhow, the current SBC, and by current I mean for pretty much my whole life, is philosophically Baptist in name only.

[ROFL BOX 6649]

Otherwise they would realize that they really have more in common with the Catholic Church than they would like to admit.

Transubstantiation says "hi".

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Actually, that kind of makes my point. Does it really matter that much? It doesn't really change the core concepts of Christianity. It is simply a disagreement about what happens after what happens after one takes the bread and the wine. Jesus would just shake his head and roll his eyes or even get righteously pissed off because his followers decided to fight over something so petty.

[CleverNickname 1321]

7 hours ago, F250 said:

Bunch of out of shape nerds in Scouting.

 

 

Lot of truth right there. At least it is some sunshine? 

[Neonmoon 38129]

8 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If you think the scientific method involves asserting as fact that which is unprovable by either observation or logic, then you have an elementary understanding of science. And, yes, that applies to anyone who asserts that their unprovable beliefs are facts and that all others must be wrong, whether atheist or believer in a god or gods or really any sort of spirituality.

I believe that there is a God; whatthebuck believes there isn't. And that's fine. But I realize that my belief is based on faith and that scientifically there is no way to prove either way, so I choose to refrain from passing judgement on those who merely state that they believe something while admitting that they really have no way of knowing whether or not it is true other than faith or a gut feeling or whatever.

Facts require evidence. The scientific method method requires testing hypothesis and having reproducible results. Stating the existence of God is unprovable is a only a mechanism to maintain the delusion. We do have a way of knowing. We test hypothesis. If the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically, then logically, God does not exist. Just because you believe the opposite, doesn’t make it true. 

I am passing judgment because that is how rational humans make decisions. They weigh the facts and decide what is true. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

That was a lot of words to say you don't understand how science works. 

[Mole 4333]

Epistemology talk not going away. Come for the discussion of organizations harboring child rapists, stay for the David Hume talk.

[cactusflinthead 27601]

10 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Were they purges or splits? I wasn't born until the mid 80's so I obviously don't recall that era, but from what I have read and heard it was more of a conservative wing of the SBC methodically consolidating power over a period of time and those that disagreed choosing to split off and form their own conventions. I don't believe that the SBC has ever really held any real power (or at least anything comparable to non congregationalist denominations) over the local churches other than peer pressure. The congregational model kinda lends itself nicely to forming splits, much more than others. Anyhow, if you have any resources or whatever that say otherwise I'd be interested in looking into them. I haven't been involved with any Baptist church for quite some time, but I do find the history of how it got to where it is fascinating. 

Edit: I do know that about fifteen years ago they were requiring IMB missionaries to sign and affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. The younger folks I talked to who were involved with missions weren't really happy about that because it basically made it a creede.

Check out an old boy on Twitter called Baptist Blogger. 

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

That was a lot of words to say you don't understand how science works. 

Why don’t you explain to us how science works? Do the Boy Scouts offer a merit badge in science?