The Q/A Thread.

[Rabid Headbanger]

What do they want you to do, pray over the mops and bless the bleach everyday?

 

[cookiecutter]

Ok, but to me it seems kind of redundant to believe in something that you can't prove at this given moment to be 100% true.

This same argument could be used on countless other things. But all that does is make you biased and limit our will to explore new theories.

No, The Big Bang, like many things, cannot be proven 100%. It is, however, the best we have at the moment. As I said, I don't believe it is 100% true, but it is shown to be true enough at this point that the general theory should be accepted.

I agree that we shouldn't discount it completely, and I'm not doing that. But to assume it's a matter of fact because that's all we have to go by at present time is retarded.

I am not assuming it is a matter of fact. I am believing in the evidence and theory presented by scientists. I don't believe it like 1+1=2, but I think it is well supported enough to justify my belief. If things change, my belief will change.

You are preaching to the choir now. As stated before, I don't think it should be dismissed. I really do hope it's investigated even more. However, comparing natural selection to the big bang theory is kind of absurd.

Why? It is supported by all the current evidence and models. It's not perfect, but neither was natural selection when it was first discovered.

Cool, and for the 100th time, I say it's not 100% factual. So I'm not going to believe it 100%.

I believe it is true, and am justified in that belief based on current evidence. I know it is likely to change, but belief can change.

 

[AchrisK]

So here's a scenario:

I was offered a job with the schoolboard as a janitor in which I will earn around $20/hr. However, for now it's on-call and for the school-wide district rather than just one school so I could possibly be phoned at random, and going to a different school each time I work.

Also, I applied for a position with a school. However, I haven't had an interview yet and don't know what it pays but it is full-time with regular hours, BUT it is at a catholic school - I'm a complete atheist, despise religion etc...this doesn't bother me, but I am curious to know how this will affect my chances of getting hired, unless I completely lie about my religion. On the job application, I answered to 'yes' when asked "are you roman catholic" when clearly I'm not, and more along the lines of an atheist/satanist. How ironic would it be if I get the job.

Which job sounds better so far, and what is the best way to approach the issue with the Catholic school, if I elect to take that route?

I would just go through with it and tell the truth. That's always the best thing to do. Are they allowed to discriminate based on religion? Regardless of your views, a good work ethic and respect is important for employees to have. So if they hire you and you have those things, then there should be no problem. Of course there is always the chance that they will turn out to be unreasonable employers, but you can't tell that at this point. Any employer could be like that.

 

[King Richard]

No, The Big Bang, like many things, cannot be proven 100%. It is, however, the best we have at the moment. As I said, I don't believe it is 100% true, but it is shown to be true enough at this point that the general theory should be accepted.



I am not assuming it is a matter of fact. I am believing in the evidence and theory presented by scientists. I don't believe it like 1+1=2, but I think it is well supported enough to justify my belief. If things change, my belief will change.



Why? It is supported by all the current evidence and models. It's not perfect, but neither was natural selection when it was first discovered.


I believe it is true, and am justified in that belief based on current evidence. I know it is likely to change, but belief can change.

Okie dokie then. I believe this is where we end this discussion.

 

[cookiecutter]

Agreed

 

[Skepticism]

How to pronounce;
Taake
Drudkh

???

 

[zabu of nΩd]

How to pronounce;
Taake
Drudkh

???

I think Taake is pronounced like "TAH-kuh" (or maybe "TAH-keh").

Not really sure about Drudjkchf-whatever.

 

[post-human]

How to pronounce;
Taake
Drudkh

???

I don't know 'bout Taake but Drudkh should be spelled "DRUKH-KHA".The word from the same origin my language "Bengali" came from.I think you already know this but it means "wood".

 

[cookiecutter]

I've always pronounced it Drud-kah

 

[Killbot]

oh. I've never had to say it, but I imagined it to be Droodk... the actual way is much better.