AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy)

Okay Schraff, go easy - don't get the grammar whip out, he/she is trying to type under quite a demand. It can be insulting, especially if you were simply in a rush!

quote:

---

How would you feel if I forced your children if you had any, or say a neighbor'skids to study marxism, or Buddism, or any such thing? You probably don't feel it is a religion either, many do!

---

So... just to be clear, are you now saying that Marxism is a religion?If so, perhaps you could enlighten us with your definition of the word religion. You seem to be operating from a different dictionary than the rest of us.

quote:

---

So, back to the topic, I don't want it forced on public schools.

---

And me, I still want to have sex with Eliza Dushku.We'll see who gets lucky first, huh?

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

He's not arguing in good faith, mike, just spouting a lot of hot air.When people claim to know best how children should be educated, yet make numerous spelling and grammar errors in their writing, I get cranky.

Any evolutionist with a sense of history should consider your request reasonable. Back in the 1920s there was a big trial on the question whether or not evolutionary theory should be taught, a trial pivotal in the creation vs evolution debate. Much to their disgrace the evolutionist establishment trew themselves in support of a teacher who was forbidden to teach evolution theory. Disgrace, because as shown below, what the teacher taught was a highly ideologized version of evolutionary theory. The science establishment either ignored the eugenics, neglected to read the textbook, or supported the teaching of eugenics as consequent to selection theory. All of which put them in a less then flattering light.So history shows that there's good reason not to blindly trust the word of the science establishment. Since evolutionary theory is becoming increasingly ideologized again, through the human genome project, and evolutionary psychology, it can't be assumed that textbooks now are free from valuejudgements like Hunter's Civic biology textbook was in the 1920s.Who would like their children to be taught that we are machines produced by selfish genes, and their propagation is our sole purpose for living. This is what the highly regarded, highly influential evolutionist R. Dawkins taught to a studio audience of children in a BBC-television special lecture. Is it really unreasonable to say "thanks but no thanks", to such ....indoctrination?Possibly a cleaned up version of evolutionary theory should be enforced. But there is no such thing as a cleaned up version of evolutionary theory, except for my own version of Natural Selection theory. I won't go into the details of how Natural Selection is fundamentally ideologically set up, but who decides wether or not it is? The science establishment including R. Dawkins? I don't think I like that idea.Page Not Found | Illinois Institute of TechnologyThus, Bryan's principal reason for opposing evolution theory was that he took it to be an immoral theory. In particular, he was opposed to what he took to be it implications of social Darwinism and eugenics. William B. Riley and Billy Sunday, who were two other major fundamentalist leaders in the attack on evolution theory in the early 1920s, also regularly spoke out against social Darwinism and eugenics when attacking evolution theory. And John Butler, the author of the Butler Act, which banned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools, also spoke of evolution as being an immoral theory, and of its leading to "public immorality"Loading...The Jukes. -- Studies have been made on a number of different families in this country, in which mental and moral defects were present in one or both of the original parents. The "Jukes" family is a notorious example. The first mother is known as "Margaret, the mother of criminals." In seventy-five years the progeny of the original generation has cost the state of New York over a million and a quarter dollars, besides giving over to the care of prisons and asylums considerably over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons. Another case recently studied is the "Kallikak" family. (Footnote: The name Kallikak is fictitious.) This family has been traced back to the War of the Revolution, when a young soldier named Martin Kallikak seduced a feeble-minded girl. She had a feeble-minded son from whom there have been to the present time 480 descendants. Of these 33 were sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble-minded. The man who started this terrible line of immorality and feeble-mindedness later married a normal Quaker girl. From this couple a line of 496 descendants have come, with no cases of feeble-mindedness. The evidence and the moral speak for themselves!Parasitism and its Cost to Society. -- Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

Okay Schraf', I see your point, I'm trying to impress Asgara with my moderator potential.

I was inclinded to argee with you Mike, I do have a serious spelling problem myself. ( ) I am also a bit too lazy to proof read eveything I write.I guess I can see Schraf's point too though. In this particular context (that of education) it does look a little foolish doesn't it?

I'm not the greatest when it comes to grammar either Ned. But it's quite clear that it doesn't take any intelligence away from the person. However you are right to say: Yes, I'm afraid so. Maybe the individual could state that it is only their opinion concerning education, or maybe look into it the arguments shown here a bit more.14Gipper said; "Good take it to some appriciative pagans, and leave the kids alone"In response to me. I know I've acted a bit like Brad in the past but......is he trying to compete with me? [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-06-2004]

AH HA! Gotcha, you didn't notice my spelling mistake! Which was actually a real one.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

Darn it!! I think we shoud rename you Naughty Ned!
Setting traps for evil little creos like me.

Well I didn't set it deliberately. I actually made the error. But then deliberately didn't correct it. (and I'm not sure I have deliberately spelled right either).No, not evil little creo. By definition creo's are god fearing and therefore can not be 'evil'. It is atheists that are, by definition, evil. Creo's are all ignorant, by definition. We need to keep our designated faults straight.

Well, that's why I said that I usually don't bother pointing out grammar and spelling errors; I'm just as much an offender as most of us.It's as you concede; those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

#52 1) Show that ToE is AntiGod
2) The problem is belief, but not in God, in the Bible.
3) I said SUPPORTS evolution, other science disciplines SUPPORT evolutionary science. So, should we do away with any science that corroborates evolutionary SCIENCE??#53 1) I wanted evidence for your claim that the bible was "the oldest book".
2) No, it is the afterlife that I don't think much of.#54 1) Like I asked, provide the "results" (you know numbers, statistics, etc), or at least a line of reasoning for this claim.After replying to all this, I have a question for you. Give me ONE example where Church and State have gone hand-in-hand and not resulted in bloodshed. I challenge you that it is more a problem in this world with people who find that they cannot reconcile the reality with the Bible in terms of facts. That is where faith comes in, because faith does not require/need corroboration.

gipper, hello! you probably have some sort of life so i can understand not responding to my comments from earlier this morning...if that is the reason. i am still waiting, though.on my way home from a football clinic today, i thought of an analogy for this whole thread. it probably is not the most original thing in the world, but here it goes...someone (i bet you can't guess who!) starts a game of baseball with some other people. the originator of the game bats first. he/she points to the stands in the outfield and then promptly strikes out. instead of going back to the dugout to wait a turn in the field and eventually another at bat, he/she demands that rules be changed so that every time he/she is up at the plate, he/she gets a homerun. why? b/c he/she said so! so the person gets another at bat. he/she hits the ball but is thrown out at first. instead of letting the game proceed, he/she demands that since the game was his/her idea, he/she should not be out. why? b/c he/she said so! besides, no one saw him/her get thrown out at first. the other players show the originator the rule book, but he/she insists on only playing by his/her rules. they explain how the rules were developed. still no headway. they show the person a video of an actual baseball game. he/she still presists with his/her stance saying that it was not a real game, just a video tape. it could have been faked. it could have been staged. spectators, commentators, historians, umpires, coaches, professional players all try to explain the game to the originator. he/she still presents the same argument--b/c i said so.sad ending--the rules are changed just b/c someone said so.happy ending--everyone walks away and continues to enjoy the game of baseball. the originator starts another game, but pretty soon, the only people that want to play are exactly the same. the rules change over and over again b/c of "b/c i said so". what is happy here? the rest of the world is still playing baseball the way it should be played.arguing with gipper is like beating a small animal, you can do it b/c it is easy, but, in the end, it is just not that satisfying.disclaimer--i do not condone the beating up of small animals nor do i suggest anyone else do it.

103 MESSAGES IN 48 HOURS.

​

GETTING PISSED ADMINNEMOOSEUS[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-07-2004]

it was an example of something someone might not want forced on them