Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
221 online now:
nwr, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux (3 members, 218 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Nij
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 211 of 331 (584450)
10-01-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 2:02 PM


The "religion" of atheism
Thank you for, at least partially, acknowledging that Atheism is a religion.

Holy fuck, he provided the quote in context and still managed to twist it!
How about you read what other people actually wrote instead of reading what you want to hear? It might go some way towards raising opinions of you. Same goes for that stupid curly text; it adds no emphasis whatsoever and makes everybody skip past because it's not worth the time to decipher. Colours are okay if while writing your messages, you remember that the normal background is a dark blue -- use yellow or orange, but not green or blue or purple.

First is the myth that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that all government entities be completely religiously neutral. I.E. they cannot express any religious opinions at all

It actually does require that. A government employee expressing their own opinion is only expressing their own opinion. This has nothing to do with their official status and it is not that official expressing an official opinion on the subject.
Do you even see the difference between stating your own opinion and stating the government's opinion? If you are stating your own opinion, you are not expressing the government's opinion. If you are stating the government's opinion, you are not stating your own opinion.*

Secondly is the myth that atheism is not taught in public schools; it is, under the guise of science

Bullshit. Science is not atheism, atheism is not science. See the list below for groups that both believe in deities and accept evolution.

Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life

Macroevolution was never used as a scientific explanation for the existence of life. Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, it would be worth going further with this. As it is, you don't even know enough to understand evolution, let alone discuss it.

The only reason that it is taught as if it were a fact, is because the atheists can not stomach anything that may even suggest that there may be a god; and they have craftily framed their religiously held beliefs in the language and mystique of science.

Then how do you explain all the
  • Christians
  • Sikhs
  • Jews
  • Buddhists
  • Daoists
  • Muslims
  • Shintoists
  • pagans
  • Hindus
  • Jainists
  • Rastafarians
  • and members of nearly every religion in the world
    that accept evolution as the current and only scientific model for explaining the diversity of life?

    {because you'll either ignore or dance around this point, I'll say it now}
    Yeah, didn't think you could.

    * Unless they happen to be the same.


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 265 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 3:24 PM Nij has not yet responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16112
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 212 of 331 (584452)
    10-01-2010 9:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
    10-01-2010 2:02 PM


    Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
    Thank you for, at least partially, acknowledging that Atheism is a religion.

    I did not do so. If you continue to pretend that I did, then you are a degraded liar wallowing in your own filth.

    What I said is that the judiciary have (rightly) agreed to treat atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 266 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 3:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

      
    Strongbow
    Junior Member (Idle past 3811 days)
    Posts: 26
    Joined: 09-16-2010


    Message 213 of 331 (585426)
    10-08-2010 9:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
    10-01-2010 2:02 PM


    Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
    Government, like science, should have no opinion on religion at all. One of the problems is that many theists interpret science which contradicts specific "sceintific" claims of their relgion as being the quivelent of atheism. There are two main problems with such an argument:

    1) Don't confuse non-endorsement of YOUR particular religious view with an explicit endorsement of atheism. That is, if your relgion believes "X," But science demonstrates "NOT X," then the sciencehas simply shown that your relgion is incorrect on that point. If another relgion (or sect of your religion) believes "NOT X" or holds no opinion on X at all, then it is NOT contradicted by sceience. Seems clear enough.

    2) The facts and the rational, logical conlusions drawn from them, are independent of specific religious opinion, and should remain so. We should not be afarid to pursue facts and their logical conclusions becuase of relgious taboos or sectarian interests. It is up to the individual religions or sects to reconcile themselves with reality, or not, as they choose.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 267 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 4:35 PM Strongbow has not yet responded

      
    JRTjr
    Member (Idle past 3206 days)
    Posts: 178
    From: Houston, Texas, USA
    Joined: 07-19-2004


    Message 214 of 331 (588532)
    10-26-2010 12:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 166 by purpledawn
    08-11-2010 6:49 AM


    Avoiding Your Question??
    Dear Purpledawn,

    Purpledawn writes:

    You're avoiding the question. I didn't ask how to identify a Christian, I asked what constitutes the exercise of the Christian religion.

    I am not avoiding your question; I’m just not giving you a ‘two cent’ answer that gives you what, you think, is grounds for denying these public displays.

    I’m identifying ‘what a Christian is’ to help me define what it is to ‘exercise the Christian religion’.

    Purpledawn writes:

    As I said in Message 129: A Bible sitting in a display case is not an exercise of the Christian Religion. So removing the Bible does not prevent a Christian from performing their religion.

    If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a “Bible sitting in a display case

    See, the Supreme Court seams to think that having these displays “constitutes the exercise of the Christian religion.” Since they use (or should I say misuse) the First Amendment to explain why they are forcibly removing these icons of Americas history.

    Now, to your main point:

    Purpledawn writes:

    A court house should be neutral zone. The individuals inside the building are not hindered from worshiping or not worshiping as they please or speaking of their religion or lack of religion.

    A court house should be neutral zone.

    A Court House should be adorned as the citizens of the community or state wish it to be adorned. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to say how the buildings and grounds of local governments may or may not be used.

    If you actually go back into this counties history you’ll probably find out that for an extremely long time a large portion of our court houses not only double as schools but as the local Church as well.

    Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell “the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”. Not only that, but the end of that oath was “So help me God.

    The individuals inside the building are not hindered from worshiping or not worshiping as they please or speaking of their religion or lack of religion.

    If I go to a Court House, and am speaking to an individual about how this Country’s laws and heritage are Christian (are of Christian origin), and the Federal Government has forcibly removed all references of that Christian heritage then, yes, I have been hindered from worshiping my God because part of my Worship is to speak the TruthA. {Exodus 20: 16, Exod23: 1, Prov19: 9; 24: 28}

    This is a big part of why I participate in these discussions. I speak the Truth because I am compelled to by my devotion to my God.

    Thank you again for your comments; hope to hear from you soon,

    JRTjr

    A. Truth
    –noun, plural truths
    1. The true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
    2. Conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
    3. A verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

    {Dictionary.com}


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 166 by purpledawn, posted 08-11-2010 6:49 AM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 215 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 1:20 PM JRTjr has responded
     Message 221 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 2:32 PM JRTjr has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 33343
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 215 of 331 (588538)
    10-26-2010 1:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 214 by JRTjr
    10-26-2010 12:42 PM


    Re: Avoiding Your Question??
    If I go to a Court House, and am speaking to an individual about how this Country’s laws and heritage are Christian (are of Christian origin), and the Federal Government has forcibly removed all references of that Christian heritage then, yes, I have been hindered from worshiping my God because part of my Worship is to speak the TruthA. {Exodus 20: 16, Exod23: 1, Prov19: 9; 24: 28}

    This is a big part of why I participate in these discussions. I speak the Truth because I am compelled to by my devotion to my God.

    Except, of course, it is not a matter of Truth but only your belief.

    But it still has NOTHING to do with the topic.

    Is there any reason that one or more of the various Christian Creation myths should be taught?

    Is there any reason that one or more of the various other Creation myths should be taught?

    Edited by jar, : add last line


    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 214 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 12:42 PM JRTjr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 269 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 5:48 PM jar has responded

      
    JRTjr
    Member (Idle past 3206 days)
    Posts: 178
    From: Houston, Texas, USA
    Joined: 07-19-2004


    Message 216 of 331 (588543)
    10-26-2010 1:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 167 by Theodoric
    08-11-2010 10:55 AM


    Still looking?!?!?
    Dear Theodoric,

    Great to hear from you again;

    Theodoric writes:

    … still looking for any reference to christianity. So, I guess on your part that is a fail.

    Man who looks with eyes closed; sees nothing

    It is easy to deny something; not so easy to prove it wrong.

    Just because you do not see it does not mean it is not there.

    Hold on; I’ve got more ;-} O.K., maybe later.

    You, being a non-Christian, may not recognize the references to the Christian faith in these things, however, that does not mean they are not there; Does it?

    Fictional story

    This guy goes hiking with some friends. Deep in the forest they stumble upon a rock formation.

    One of the guys, in the group, puts his foot on one of the rocks and says that that rock is gold.

    One of the other guys in the group chuckles and says ‘your kidding I don’t see any gold’.

    The leader of the group looks over to him and says ‘you sure you don’t see any gold? After all he’s a geologist.’

    Note here that the Geologist did not mean that the entire rock was gold.

    Moral of the story is: Just because you do not see it does not mean it does not exist.

    Theodoric writes:

    …the Declaration is not a US legal document.

    In what sense of “legal document” are you speaking of?

    Whether or not “the Declaration” is a “legal” “U.S.” “document” is not really relevant to my point; I’m just curious.

    Thank you, again, for your participation,
    JRTjr


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 167 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 10:55 AM Theodoric has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 217 by ringo, posted 10-26-2010 2:06 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
     Message 218 by Theodoric, posted 10-26-2010 2:09 PM JRTjr has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 19080
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 217 of 331 (588544)
    10-26-2010 2:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 216 by JRTjr
    10-26-2010 1:53 PM


    JRTjr writes:

    Note here that the Geologist did not mean that the entire rock was gold.

    Moral of the story is: Just because you do not see it does not mean it does not exist.


    And just because you do see it doesn't mean it is what you think it is. Ever hear of fools' gold?

    The topic question is essentially: Which gold should we make our jewellry out of? What makes one sample of fools' gold different from another?


    "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 216 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 1:53 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

      
    Theodoric
    Member
    Posts: 7051
    From: Northwest, WI, USA
    Joined: 08-15-2005


    Message 218 of 331 (588546)
    10-26-2010 2:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 216 by JRTjr
    10-26-2010 1:53 PM


    Amazing
    You had a whole post, even pretty fonts, and still you provided no evidence.

    ‘Just because you do not see it does not mean it is not there.’

    You have provided nothing to see. Repeatedly you have been asked to provide evidence of Christianity in the Constitution and to date you have not provided one scrap of evidence.

    You, being a non-Christian, may not recognize the references to the Christian faith in these things, however, that does not mean they are not there; Does it?

    What are the references?

    In what sense of “legal document” are you speaking of?

    It is not a US government document. It is a document prior to the formation of the United States. Though it is and should be accorded great respect it's purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.
    Whether or not “the Declaration” is a “legal” “U.S.” “document” is not really relevant to my point; I’m just curious.

    If you want to state that Christianity is the basis of US law then it is.


    Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 216 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 1:53 PM JRTjr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 219 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 2:19 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
     Message 287 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 7:51 PM Theodoric has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 33343
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 219 of 331 (588549)
    10-26-2010 2:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 218 by Theodoric
    10-26-2010 2:09 PM


    Re: Amazing
    Theodric writes:

    JRTjr writes:

    Whether or not “the Declaration” is a “legal” “U.S.” “document” is not really relevant to my point; I’m just curious.


    If you want to state that Christianity is the basis of US law then it is.

    I think you need to go re-read the Decalogue to the US Constitution.

    Decalogue 20:2-17...

    2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of England, out of the house of slavery;

    3 Do not have any other gods before me.
    .
    .
    .


    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 218 by Theodoric, posted 10-26-2010 2:09 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

      
    JRTjr
    Member (Idle past 3206 days)
    Posts: 178
    From: Houston, Texas, USA
    Joined: 07-19-2004


    Message 220 of 331 (588551)
    10-26-2010 2:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 168 by New Cat's Eye
    08-11-2010 1:03 PM


    Contradiction!?!?
    Dear Catholic Scientist,

    Great to hear from you; I am sorry, however, I just answered you question in Message #214.

    If you have any other questions or comments I would love to hear them.

    God Bless,
    JRTjr


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2010 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 222 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2010 2:44 PM JRTjr has responded

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16112
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    (2)
    Message 221 of 331 (588553)
    10-26-2010 2:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 214 by JRTjr
    10-26-2010 12:42 PM


    Re: Avoiding Your Question??
    If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a “Bible sitting in a display case”

    No, you're not following this.

    It's not "free exercise", so it's not protected. It is "establishment", so it's forbidden.

    A Court House should be adorned as the citizens of the community or state wish it to be adorned. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to say how the buildings and grounds of local governments may or may not be used.

    Yes there is. First Amendment, remember?

    Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell “the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”. Not only that, but the end of that oath was “So help me God.”

    They still do. One can take the oath on the Bible, or on the Koran, or one can "affirm" --- it's a personal choice. That's free exercise.

    If I go to a Court House, and am speaking to an individual about how this Country’s laws and heritage are Christian (are of Christian origin), and the Federal Government has forcibly removed all references of that Christian heritage then, yes, I have been hindered from worshiping my God because part of my Worship is to speak the Truth.

    Well, there are so many things wrong with this I'll have to number them.

    (1) You are still absolutely free to say what you like. But no-one is obliged to provide you with what you consider to be corroborating evidence.

    If you believed that all atheists eat babies, I would not be taking away your freedom of speech or religion by refusing to publicly eat a baby. And if I did agree to eat a baby, then the police would not be taking away your freedom of speech or religion by arresting me before I could eat the baby.

    It would hinder you in making your message plausible, but it would not stop you from saying what you like. Which is all that freedom of speech guarantees.

    (2) You are playing with a two-edged sword. You are a Christian, and you believe that this country's laws are of Christian origin. I, on the other hand, am an atheist, and I think that America was founded on secular principles.

    If you say that it interferes with your speech and/or religion for someone to take down a public display of the Ten Commandments, might I not equally claim that it interferes with my rights to put them up?

    (3) It's not about "heritage", is it?

    If someone wanted to chip the Ten Commandments off a courthouse wall where they'd been since the eighteenth century, I should oppose that with you. A nation's history should be preserved. I'm fine with, for example, the statues of Moses and Mohammad in the Supreme Court building, because that is "heritage".

    But the problem is that now people want to put the Bible or the Ten Commandments in places where they've never ever been since 1776 to this present day. That's not "heritage". If people are depriving you of that, how are they depriving you of arguments for a "Christian heritage"?

    A modern innovation is not "heritage".

    Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 214 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 12:42 PM JRTjr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 290 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 8:49 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 222 of 331 (588554)
    10-26-2010 2:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 220 by JRTjr
    10-26-2010 2:23 PM


    Re: Contradiction!?!?
    Great to hear from you; I am sorry, however, I just answered you question in Message #214.

    If you have any other questions or comments I would love to hear them.

    Alrighty... none of this has anything to do with the topic, but here you go:

    In Message 214 you wrote:

    Purpledawn writes:

    As I said in Message 129: A Bible sitting in a display case is not an exercise of the Christian Religion. So removing the Bible does not prevent a Christian from performing their religion.

    If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a “Bible sitting in a display case

    See, the Supreme Court seams to think that having these displays “constitutes the exercise of the Christian religion.” Since they use (or should I say misuse) the First Amendment to explain why they are forcibly removing these icons of Americas history.

    No, you're mistaken. Legallly requiring Bibles in court would be the establishment of a religion, not the exercise of it.

    And removing the Bible is not preventing anyone from exercising thier religion.

    The law is that religion shall not be established, nor prevented from being exercised.

    A Court House should be adorned as the citizens of the community or state wish it to be adorned. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to say how the buildings and grounds of local governments may or may not be used.

    And that goes both ways... the Bible could certainly be Constitutionally removed.

    If you actually go back into this counties history you’ll probably find out that for an extremely long time a large portion of our court houses not only double as schools but as the local Church as well.

    Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell “the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”. Not only that, but the end of that oath was “So help me God.

    Yeah, the times... they are a changin'. BFD.

    If I go to a Court House, and am speaking to an individual about how this Country’s laws and heritage are Christian (are of Christian origin), and the Federal Government has forcibly removed all references of that Christian heritage then, yes, I have been hindered from worshiping my God because part of my Worship is to speak the TruthA.

    Huh? Can you run me through the logic on that one? How are you being prevented from speaking the truth, and thus hindered from worshiping your god?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 220 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 2:23 PM JRTjr has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 294 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 9:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Director
    Posts: 3934
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 223 of 331 (588638)
    10-27-2010 12:00 AM


    I suspect this topic has been about 0.1% on theme
    Message 1 is:

    If we are to teach creation in public schools, which creation story should we teach? Do we teach Genesis? If so which version of Genesis? Do we teach the story of the Norse gods carving the world from the bones of giants? Or the Hindu belief that the world is God's dream? Heck, even Christians don't agree on a literal six-day creation less than 10'000 years ago or Genesis as metaphor for divinely inspired evolution...

    I say evolution belongs in the science classroom and creation belongs in comparative religion...

    If anyone has anything to say that's on-topic theme, say it soon. Otherwise this topic is soon going to be closed down.

    As always, members might want to consider proposing a new topic for the here off-topic material.

    Adminnemooseus

    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Because I can, or something like that.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2010 12:32 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16112
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 224 of 331 (588641)
    10-27-2010 12:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 223 by Adminnemooseus
    10-27-2010 12:00 AM


    Re: I suspect this topic has been about 0.1% on theme
    I suspect this topic has been about 0.1% on theme.

    Alternatively, it's been 99.9% on theme, and you should delete the OP for being off-topic.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 223 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-27-2010 12:00 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

      
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 3091 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 225 of 331 (588676)
    10-27-2010 11:45 AM


    Which religion's creation story should be taught?
    Which religion's creation story should be taught?

    In a science class, none!
    In comparative religions class, all or at least all that the time will allow.


    There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

    Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

    Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021