All of the right loves generalizations.
Being agnostic doesn’t mean you don’t know what you believe or doubt your own beliefs. In regards to God, it means you don’t believe in God, but acknowledge that there are too many unknowns in the universe to complete discount the idea of a god or creator.
write?
please show where i have written off scientific studies
I said some on the right, not you. I have no interest in investing time digging through your post history.
youre missing out!
you’d learn so much
I get it, remember when Biden repeatedly ■■■■ talked the Pope and the Church in 2016?
How does it feel to be wrong so often?
an agnostic is a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
How do I know this? I am one.
People who don’t believe in a god are called Atheists
As I said in another thread, all libs can do about this nomination (and eventual confirmation) is shout at the sky and stomp their feet and threaten to hold their breath…
We’re seeing it in thread after thread.
Bottom line, their long-seated liberal hero is being replaced with a stalwart constitutional conservative who is younger than RBG was when she was originally seated. The sea change shift in the SCOTUS is effectively a done deal and will remain so,likely longer than most of them will live.
no, it doesn’t. if you don’t believe in god, you’re an athiest
agnostics take no position.
I’m sensing some sass.
I looked it up and realized what I thought was under the category of agnostic was actually called agnostic atheism.
She sat on the story for three years, thinking it was too fantastical for publication.
I read it. Your intimation was that somehow her picture of the future has now become a reality. If that’s what you meant to say, then say it.
Show your work.
1 Like
What I’m saying is…One of her inspirations for her book was the religious group that Barret belongs to. And the author has said that she was hoping her book would have faded away. But since it hasn’t, and a member of that group is now prominent in politics, she has parsed her words saying the group wasn’t Barrets, but one just like hers. Doing this so she doesn’t have to deal with any controversy.
1 Like
A great improvement in the court. A very refreshing change.
Only a little. 
And if people do not think a major issue in this election is about ongoing SCOTUS replacements, they need to think again.
Next replacement will likely be Thomas’ seat. A Biden presidency will undo the quantum shift that Barrett selection has effected. A Trump presidency will reinforce it. (He’ll likely pick Lagoa the next time.)
It has essentially taken three Trump selections to counteract Bush’s John Roberts pick.
How easily one activist seat can spoil the whole barrel!
1 Like
That’s very true and i knew Ginsburg was an activist even before she was confirmed.
SCOTUS replacements and who gets to make them has always been huge in my deciding who to vote for for President.
1 Like
I am especially bemused by the fools enamored of the notion the the SC is above politics and always has been.
2 Likes
And she topped off her “testimony” by speaking in her 10 year old little girl voice. That alone gave her credibility to Libs…
You know, it’s just as racist or bigoted to exclude someone based on race or sex as it is to PICK someone based on their race or sex…
The Republicans haven’t excluded anyone based on race or sex. Why did you guys vote for Obama again or choose Harris as Joe’s running mate? Oh yeah, race and sex…
