Students to be taught there isn't a God

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

I keep falling into this trap of reading what people write and thinking that is what they mean to say.

Now, please...do go on...

I see, the problem you are having and I agree as he did use the "word" church so your argument is one of a technicality on the context he uses the word church where you are obvioulsy way too smart to fall for this trick. I see now that you are not willing to be taken in by any other use of the word metaphorically or literally meaning "Religion" but to mean "Church" and only Church, am I correct?

I just wonder how then do you enforce the sepratiion of church and state to mean anything other than a separation of any building with a steeple and state government? After all, you ARE arguing with that line of logic and if Church can not mean religion then separation of church and state means something completely different.

My agenda? I must have lost it. Could you post it or U2U it to me? Please.

No

reply to post by WatchNLearn
I suppose the next oxymoronic move will be to teach in math class is that numbers dont exist!Making that subject moot also.

Originally posted by nj2day

My tax dollars WILL NOT be spent like that without me at least putting up a fight.

To start, even though I am Christian by choice, I do believe that Religion should not be taught in State run schools. I'm with you on that.

Here is the problem with the tax argument. More than 80% of taxpayers do believe in God.

Another problem is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I believe abortion is murder purely from a philosophical point of view. No person can predict whether or not that fetus will have a good life or bad, be a blessing to humanity or not. I am opposed to my tax money funding abortions since to me it is murder.

What I'm saying is that people need to tolerate others wants as well as their beliefs. It could be argued that your tax money pays for abortions rather than mine and my tax dollars support anything religious not yours.

The real answer is that no tax dollars should be used for either purpose. You and I both know that tax money will continue to be used for both purposes though.

I fully believe that if religion did not exist at all, the same people would still be doing the same things. The wars would still occur, there would still be terrorists and there would still be people trying to dictate to others.

What a coincidence. I just read a story about a teacher who told the truth to her class that there was no Santa. WoW. It's ok if you believe in a ficitonal powerful being called Santa and lie to your kids about it but whatever you do, don't tell your kids they can be saved from their sins by a powerful real being called GOD. Hmm...imagine that.

Sorry, I must admit Im jumping to the end of the thread...

But, if they are going to offer a class about 'god', they should include all the religions, ancient to mainstream today...kinda like they teach mythology, all aspects of it instead of ONE religions or myth.

I wish I would of been educated on some of the older findings of the texts they have translated now, like Egyptian beliefs, ancient Jewish beliefs, Sumerians, Kabbalah (sp?)Mari, heck....throw some alchemy in there too ....they should teach it all if they are going to teach it so the youngster get their own ideas out of it.

Just thoughts always,
LV

reply to post by WatchNLearn


finally, someone who agrees with me on the issue

reply to post by Blaine91555


what you are implying is called a tyranny of the majority...

A republic should protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority...

the majority of the United States is Caucasian... perhaps since whites are the majority, we shouldn't protect the interests of the minorities?

Doesn't sound so good when you change religion for race does it?

reply to post by nj2day


Uhm... what does it sound like if you switch it out for toeheadedness?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Not sure yet, you dellusional?

Well, I AM arguing with a knownothing like you, aren't I?

You think there are two options, god or no god. I think there may be infinite answers, flying spaghetti moster included. So you tell me where any of what you showed us proves anything in relation to any specific god.

Nooooooo, I'm giving you an example of how this all works. If you think the Flying Spagetti Monster is an option, then take the observations, calculate their statistical likelihood for FSM and whatever control you wish to use -- Yahweh, Jove, Sol Invictus, chance, ponzi scheme, overdose on Exlax, whatever. The process is the same regardless of which option you think of.

Of course you know this; thats why you're trying to change the subject from the general to the specific in some lame attempt to score points with the skeptic "amen" corner. If you wish to discuss the specifics, make a new post.

Tsk, tsk....

I am in no way religious and at the ripe old age of 11, I got my mum to write me a note allowing me to be absent from bible studies.

Now as an adult I see the error in my ways. I don't care about the religious side of the bible. I do however believe that the stories in the bible did happen to a certain extent. David Rohl has proved that the bible is more than just fairy floss. It's a story of the origins of man and it is important that we know where we came from. Not saying the message hasn't been garbled, but it has. It doesn't mean it's all bad...

Originally posted by ZenaV
What a coincidence. I just read a story about a teacher who told the truth to her class that there was no Santa. WoW. It's ok if you believe in a ficitonal powerful being called Santa and lie to your kids about it but whatever you do, don't tell your kids they can be saved from their sins by a powerful real being called GOD. Hmm...imagine that.

Santa is God...

Originally posted by Quiintus
Santa is God...

But...but...santa wears a red bobble hat...

Originally posted by Quiintus
I am in no way religious and at the ripe old age of 11, I got my mum to write me a note allowing me to be absent from bible studies.

Now as an adult I see the error in my ways. I don't care about the religious side of the bible...

Knowledge is great. So just learning the basis of the different religious faiths is worthwhile. We don't need to 'indoctrinate'. Whether seen as cultural myth or Truth, learning is always good.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
...as for the rest of your arrogant stupidity

MY arrogant stupidity?? I'm simply treating you as you seem to want to be treated! You treat theists in general and Christians in particular like they are morally and intellectually inferior to you, so that MUST LOGICALLY be how you wqant to be treated yourself.

Can't stand the heat....

I am looking and I still do not see any data that supports a god to introduce into your little equation to begin with. You cannot just assume variables and then cancel one and say it is proof of the other. Why would a god be the only other choice again? I do not see it in the data.

This is what I mean by dense... FIRST off, I'm using this as an example of how the process is supposed to work. It wasn't mean't to be a full fledged argument; if I had meant that I would have provided the link I gave AS THE ARGUMENT!!!

Either you knew this and decided to play "gotcha" and got caught, making you a (insert name of male genetaila here), or you can't read very well. Which is it?

Oh ho ho ho ho ho - that is a big ol' belly laugh. Now I know you are a nutter. One of them creationist website readin' kind ain't ya? I got as long as you have if you are going to prove historical reliability of the bible.

Dude, look at the signature. I am, so far as I have found, the ONLY person credentialed to speak on the subject of religion on this board. And starting in January, I will be working on adding a Master's in Ancient History to the Philosophy of Religion degree I ALREADY hold.

So lets debate... Set up the thread. U2U me with the details. I'm off work on Tuesdays (I alternate Mondays and Wednesdays)

You game?

But....... even then, that still would not prove god. It would prove the specific instances. I have already played this game.

Here is the real game to your argument... You have all of these "specific instances" that favor the existance of the Judeo-Christian God over a given other possibility, and you guys go "Yea, but you cannot ultimately proove anything! There is ALWAYS a statistical chance that what appears to be is not so."

That is intellectual cowardice. When statistical data reach certain points it is perfectly proper to call something "proven" or "impossible" until new data is available.

Like this..."Weaveworld" mentions locations from GB that are real and factual. That must add to the factual historical reliability of that book. It mentions places and things that we know have really happend. So it is true right? ... Your standard of proof is not only flawed to begin with but it will not stand up to any real scrutiny so I must guess you are just going to pretend you made a good point and walk away having said really nothing.

Please read Aristotle's Poetics before writing know-nothingisms like this. The science of textual criticism, which is derived from Aristotle, is predicated on the idea of innocent until proven guilty - Any non-fiction book should be assumed to be telling the truth about its subject until the book itself proves itself wrong through accidental or deliberate error.

Barker's book however is clearly marked fiction. The Bible is not, and as such is held to a different, and more exacting, standard.

While there are numerous areas where the archeological and historical record are silent on things claimed in the Bible, there has NEVER been a single archeological find that contradicts the Bible. And that isn't open for debate.

Originally posted by Dulcimer
The whole thing is stupid. Religion should be out of the schools period. Not even discussed.

a little open mindedness and tolerance on both sides

There is no evidence, in the terms that science demands it, to prove or disprove religion, so I dont feel it should be taught in science, however, there should be a place for religion, philosiphy etc elsewhere

Extremists on the secular side and the religious side are the problem

reply to post by Aermacchi


So, if I get your theme here, if we all ignore science, get totally ignorant and live like it was the thirteenth century, we won't go commie? It's really astounding that people think like that.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I see, the problem you are having and I agree as he did use the "word" church so your argument is one of a technicality on the context he uses the word church where you are obvioulsy way too smart to fall for this trick. I see now that you are not willing to be taken in by any other use of the word metaphorically or literally meaning "Religion" but to mean "Church" and only Church, am I correct?

No. I understand where you may get that from but when you say the country was founded on "the church" you need to clarify. There are many religions. Does church mean Islam? VooDoo? Witchcraft? Or am I suppose to know that when someone says "the church" they really mean whichever branch of the Christian religion is going to fit best into their argument? Sorry but you are right. I am too smart for that. Church can either mean building of worship or specific organized religious construct, IE the Catholic church, the Mormon church and so on. Nowhere can I find church to mean Christianity but not even Christianity because history will show they were not Christians, just used the same book, so then we are supposed to just hope it is close enough to count?

Nah, he said "the church."

I just wonder how then do you enforce the sepratiion of church and state to mean anything other than a separation of any building with a steeple and state government? After all, you ARE arguing with that line of logic and if Church can not mean religion then separation of church and state means something completely different.

I dunno, you are the one that says it has to be a building. I never even hinted at that. I just stated that Church does not mean any and all religions, because if it did, I can plug Satanism in and his argument reverses itself. You cannot have it both ways.

My agenda? I must have lost it. Could you post it or U2U it to me? Please.

No

You said Ihad one and that you knew what it was and I do not so I was hoping you would share.

Originally posted by papabryant

MY arrogant stupidity?? I'm simply treating you as you seem to want to be treated! You treat theists in general and Christians in particular like they are morally and intellectually inferior to you,

they are

so that MUST LOGICALLY be how you wqant to be treated yourself.

I could care less how you treat me. Your actions should be your choice, not mine. Thanks but no thanks. No desire to herd sheep but thanks.

This is what I mean by dense... FIRST off, I'm using this as an example of how the process is supposed to work. It wasn't mean't to be a full fledged argument; if I had meant that I would have provided the link I gave AS THE ARGUMENT!!!

Either you knew this and decided to play "gotcha" and got caught, making you a (insert name of male genetaila here), or you can't read very well. Which is it?

Huh? So you said something is true and portended to prove it with math but when I point out how you just made it up, it is now just some crazy example and I am stupid for not getting that? Maybe I am that stupid because I am lost now.

Dude, look at the signature. I am, so far as I have found, the ONLY person credentialed to speak on the subject of religion on this board. And starting in January, I will be working on adding a Master's in Ancient History to the Philosophy of Religion degree I ALREADY hold.

LOL. Sorry, I did not know it was post your credentials in your sig and brag about the ones you will get soon time again already. Sigh, well I could do the same and shut you up but then, I guess I am not as vain as you good Christians are.

So lets debate... Set up the thread. U2U me with the details. I'm off work on Tuesdays (I alternate Mondays and Wednesdays)

You game?

Definitely. But is there a reason you want to run from here to argue something else somewhere else? Are you just looking to prove you are smarter than me at something or make an actual point. I sure hope it is not about Jesus.

Here is the real game to your argument... You have all of these "specific instances" that favor the existance of the Judeo-Christian God over a given other possibility, and you guys go "Yea, but you cannot ultimately proove anything! There is ALWAYS a statistical chance that what appears to be is not so."

Huh? When did anyone show any specific instances? I did not see any, much less swat any away. I say you can not ultimately prove it and you cannot prove it even a little. I say you cannot come up with ONE instance in which you can prove the chance for a god.

That is intellectual cowardice. When statistical data reach certain points it is perfectly proper to call something "proven" or "impossible" until new data is available.

Really? Why do you keep failing to show how you introduce the variable of a god into your stats?

Please read Aristotle's Poetics before writing know-nothingisms like this. The science of textual criticism, which is derived from Aristotle, is predicated on the idea of innocent until proven guilty - Any non-fiction book should be assumed to be telling the truth about its subject until the book itself proves itself wrong through accidental or deliberate error.

Barker's book however is clearly marked fiction. The Bible is not, and as such is held to a different, and more exacting, standard.

That is your whole argument? The bible says the bible is true so that makes it so? The bible is true until proven untrue? OKEY DOKEY! I am gonna go write my own true book tonight and make up my own god. I guess by your logic, as long as I call it non-fiction, then it is true until proven untrue eh? Interesting.

While there are numerous areas where the archeological and historical record are silent on things claimed in the Bible, there has NEVER been a single archeological find that contradicts the Bible. And that isn't open for debate.

LOL. That is funny. You just ran right back up to where we just were. Archeological evidence discovers there was a Jeruselem. The bible says there was. The bible is true. Yeah, ok.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Originally posted by OWGNOW
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

So, if I get your theme here, if we all ignore science, get totally ignorant and live like it was the thirteenth century, we won't go commie? It's really astounding that people think like that.

Care to show me where I said ANYTHING like that ? What is astounding is the way you lie about what people actually say here and continue to do it without being banned for it. You want to "interpret" what I say as giving up on science to avoid becomming a commie, at least you could copy paste the quote I allegedly used to suggest that kind of thing. Science has got nothing to do with evolution anymore or haven't you heard? Natural Selection and Random mutation as a science?? HA HA HA HA HA that has been debunked so well it is amazing you would even mention it in the same frame of referance you do science.

How does THAT astound you cowboy

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I see, the problem you are having and I agree as he did use the "word" church so your argument is one of a technicality on the context he uses the word church where you are obvioulsy way too smart to fall for this trick. I see now that you are not willing to be taken in by any other use of the word metaphorically or literally meaning "Religion" but to mean "Church" and only Church, am I correct?

No. I understand where you may get that from but when you say the country was founded on "the church" you need to clarify. There are many religions. Does church mean Islam? VooDoo? Witchcraft? Or am I suppose to know that when someone says "the church" they really mean whichever branch of the Christian religion is going to fit best into their argument? Sorry but you are right. I am too smart for that. Church can either mean building of worship or specific organized religious construct, IE the Catholic church, the Mormon church and so on. Nowhere can I find church to mean Christianity but not even Christianity because history will show they were not Christians, just used the same book, so then we are supposed to just hope it is close enough to count?

Nah, he said "the church."

I just wonder how then do you enforce the sepratiion of church and state to mean anything other than a separation of any building with a steeple and state government? After all, you ARE arguing with that line of logic and if Church can not mean religion then separation of church and state means something completely different.

I dunno, you are the one that says it has to be a building. I never even hinted at that. I just stated that Church does not mean any and all religions, because if it did, I can plug Satanism in and his argument reverses itself. You cannot have it both ways.

My agenda? I must have lost it. Could you post it or U2U it to me? Please.

No

You said Ihad one and that you knew what it was and I do not so I was hoping you would share.

Oh you are correct again light litangelo, how silly of me to assume you had the common sense to know how this country was started and by whom. I thought the two links might have given you a clue but then again looking at your posts and the number of times I have seen you personally insult posters by calling them "Idiots" and in one thread you called someone "stupid" so often I couoldn't believe you are still here posting. Then lo and behold you have called another one stupid in this thread!

Are you a MOD on a shill? I didn't think so at first knowing you use aol but I guess you like crappy isp's. I will suggest to the one you have said this to to refrain from responding in kind I see he has stooped to your level also but I kinda have to give him a break as i don't think anyone else would have tolerated your venomous posts so rife with beligerent intolerance and self righteous arrogance but to just come out insulting people personally the way I have seen you do here and in the other threads you participate in has become legend here.

If you would like, I can quote everyone of them for you?

I save stuff like that = )

Cheers

Originally posted by Aermacchi

If you would like, I can quote everyone of them for you?

I save stuff like that = )

Cheers

So either this thread is about me or your entire post is against TOS. What does attacking me have to do with students, God, and what is being taught to whom about it?