NationStates Jolt Archive

My highschool adopted I policy I reccomend American highschools try. It went like this, they invited a number of local religious leaders into our science class and asked them to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design. But there was one catch, they could only teach it from a scientific standpoint. To quote my Prinipal "It was afterall, a science class". To this day there have been no futher moves to have Creatonism or Intelligent Design taught at my old highschool.

Well, they probably know or suspect they are outclassed when it comes to scientific knowledge. I mean if they weren't, they wouldn't be "Intelligent Design" fanatics.

"seperation of church and state" always comes to mind.

"seperation of church and state" always comes to mind.

That is not in the constitution. Therefore, it does not apply.

I’m a creationist and would never try to prove it scientifically or teach it alongside science. That just cheapens the whole concept. It’s just not something you can believe in without either ignorance, or an uncommon understanding of the world, like I have. I am aware that this makes me seem arrogant and illogical, but I don’t care. Those are pretty good adjectives to describe me anyway.

Well, they probably know or suspect they are outclassed when it comes to scientific knowledge. I mean if they weren't, they wouldn't be "Intelligent Design" fanatics.

Nah, the problem is that you cannot fill a sciencelecture with the concept of ID itself. The analysing methods it employs - yes, definately. Those can fill several courses. Speculation on the nature of the designer, same - though that is very close to religion. But the foundation of ID - the whole hypothesis that there *is/was* an Intelligent Designer - and the scientific basis for that assumption is simply too small to actually have something to teach.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Cards/ID.jpg

BTW, I think the "Church & State" thing has been deftly dodged, as the proponents of ID have taken great care to name no single entity whom is responsible for the creation of mankind. Time, and the courts will tell.

That is not in the constitution. Therefore, it does not apply.
It's been taken too far anyway. They really are being bastards about it. Like the dumbasseses trying to prevent the Salvation Army from helping with relief.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Cards/ID.jpg

BTW, I think the "Church & State" thing has been deftly dodged, as the proponents of ID have taken great care to name no single entity whom is responsible for the creation of mankind. Time, and the courts will tell.

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Is that clear?

So...what? That means it shouldnt be practiced?

Say yes. I dare you.

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!
Is that clear?

And yet both Madison and Jefferson talked about it so guess what they intended?

So...what? That means it shouldnt be practiced?

Say yes. I dare you.

And if I say yes, will you try bring the history of England when they controlled the church?

Nice try. My point is that Creationism can be taught in schools, pray can be said in schools, 'Under God' can and shall always be a part of our pledge of allegiance, and the 10 Commandments can be put up on any part of government property.

And anything the Supreme Court says on it, saying it is 'unconstitutional', is a load of bullshit.

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Is that clear?

Way to bite the head off of a person with a truly correct thought. Way to go.

And yet both Madison and Jefferson talked about it so guess what they intended?

Actually, that was Franklin discussing it with a friend in Private Letters. And because Madison and Jefferson discussed it, doesn't make it written in stone, does it?

Oh, and I dare you to say yes to that.

Way to bite the head off of a person with a truly correct thought. Way to go.
:rolleyes: You people never learn...

It's not a debate! Nothing can be proven, nothing can be disproven. Believe what you want and shut up about it.

Nah, the problem is that you cannot fill a sciencelecture with the concept of ID itself. The analysing methods it employs - yes, definately. Those can fill several courses. Speculation on the nature of the designer, same - though that is very close to religion. But the foundation of ID - the whole hypothesis that there *is/was* an Intelligent Designer - and the scientific basis for that assumption is simply too small to actually have something to teach.
Bingo. Oh what fun the look on their face is though.

Way to bite the head off of a person with a truly correct thought. Way to go.

Oh, my apologies. I just got tired of seeing it used again and again to declare things unconstitutional, when in fact, they aren't.

Oh, my apologies. I just got tired of seeing it used again and again to declare things unconstitutional, when in fact, they aren't.

... and I didn't say anything about it being unconstitutional or constitutional. All I said was that by removing every reference to any kind of a divine being, they MAY have squeaked out of the "Church & State" argument... from a governmental standpoint.

And if I say yes, will you try bring the history of England when they controlled the church?
Or any one of many examples, yes. The last time we mixed politics and religion in this country, people got burned at the stake. Do you really think its worth trying again?

Nice try. My point is that Creationism can be taught in schools, pray can be said in schools, 'Under God' can and shall always be a part of our pledge of allegiance, and the 10 Commandments can be put up on any part of government property.
Not if the people don't want them to be. Frankly, that tax money is just as much mine as it is yours. It's better to keep religion out of the equation entirely than to spend our entire lives arguing about which one of us is right and who deserves the granite pedestal inscribed with our moral axioms. I might want "I swear my my life and my love of it that I will never live my life for another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" inscribed in big-ass letters over some various government office, but I'm not going to say it can and shall be, just because me and some other people might want it.

Of course the commandments can be put up in a government building. And sane people can take them down.

And anything the Supreme Court says on it, saying it is 'unconstitutional', is a load of bullshit.
No surprise there. Most of what the supreme court says is bullshit.

Actually, that was Franklin discussing it with a friend in Private Letters. And because Madison and Jefferson discussed it, doesn't make it written in stone, does it?

Oh, and I dare you to say yes to that.

Yes Franklin did. I mention the other two simply because of their involvement with the DOI and the Constitution.

So I say yes the intent of seperation of church and state was the design. Madison chose his words beautifully.

Read his writings which explains his thoughts rather well....

It doesn't matter. If it is not written into the constitution, all it becomes is his intent.

Melkor:

1.) No, that was not religion and politics. That was anarchy. :D
2.) While it may be just as much my tax money as yours, why remove something that wasn't causing any harm? And prayer in school doesn't hurt anyone.
3.) Why would any sane person want to take down the commandments? If you don't believe in Christianity, just don't look at them.

It doesn't matter. If it is not written into the constitution, all it becomes is his intent.

Melkor:

1.) No, that was not religion and politics. That was anarchy. :D
2.) While it may be just as much my tax money as yours, why remove something that wasn't causing any harm? And prayer in school doesn't hurt anyone.
3.) Why would any sane person want to take down the commandments? If you don't believe in Christianity, just don't look at them.
it hurts me to pray to the christian god using their prayers. and if the government pays for that, then it should do the same for all other religions

It doesn't matter. If it is not written into the constitution, all it becomes is his intent.

Melkor:

1.) No, that was not religion and politics. That was anarchy. :D
Nice try, but it was religion and politics. Any history textbook or firsthand account will tell you this. If it were anarchy there would have been no courts to hand down the verdicts.

2.) While it may be just as much my tax money as yours, why remove something that wasn't causing any harm? And prayer in school doesn't hurt anyone.
Because by spending my money to promote a cause I want no part of is causing harm. The money I earn through the time out of my life I spend giving my services to others should only be spent on things which I deem fit, since that money is more or less an extension of my life. By buying enormous pedestals for you to trumpet your twisted morality, you're compromising my life by demanding that I pay for a share of its construction and maintenance. Not causing harm my ass.

And prayer in school is an often misunderstood issue. I don't think any administrator in the country would expel a student for praying on his own, and I think on some level we both know that. What's being rallied against is school sanctioned prayer or mandated prayer.

3.) Why would any sane person want to take down the commandments? If you don't believe in Christianity, just don't look at them.
I shouldn't have to pay for them either, and my government certainly shouldn't be showing that kind of favoritism in any event.

I shouldn't be taxed in the first place anyway, but that's not the issue here I suppose. Still, this is something of a weak argument. Validating your position by telling the opposition to just 'ignore it if you don't like it' has never been a very productive course of action. It's just not how things work.

ID does not qualify as science, therefore it should not be taught in science class. Why is that so hard for some people?

It doesn't matter. If it is not written into the constitution, all it becomes is his intent.


Again the Constitution is not only about absolutes.



2.) While it may be just as much my tax money as yours, why remove something that wasn't causing any harm? And prayer in school doesn't hurt anyone.

Class led prayer time is what they are after. Nothing wrong with private time.....


3.) Why would any sane person want to take down the commandments? If you don't believe in Christianity, just don't look at them.

I like classical nude art, why can't Christians simply not look at it.

I like "adult" themed movies; why can't Christians turn the channel or not go into the theater?

I like books, why can't Christians ignore them?

Not that simple is it?

It doesn't matter. If it is not written into the constitution, all it becomes is his intent.

You've just put the smack-down on Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Both argue that the Consitution should be interpreted through the original intent of the found fathers, and have argued/voted in favor of your positons concerning religion. Shall we negate their votes then, since original intent must be "unconstitutional?"

I like classical nude art, why can't Christians simply not look at it.

I like "adult" themed movies; why can't Christians turn the channel or not go into the theater?

I like books, why can't Christians ignore them?

Not that simple is it?
You know, I really wished this argument would have occured to me, as in hindishgt its pretty obvious. Very nice, but I bet the response satisfies no one. ;)

Again the Constitution is not only about absolutes.



Class led prayer time is what they are after. Nothing wrong with private time.....



I like classical nude art, why can't Christians simply not look at it.

I like "adult" themed movies; why can't Christians turn the channel or not go into the theater?

I like books, why can't Christians ignore them?

Not that simple is it?
brilliant come back, i love it , i have to agree with melkor unchained on this

My highschool adopted I policy I reccomend American highschools try. It went like this, they invited a number of local religious leaders into our science class and asked them to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design. But there was one catch, they could only teach it from a scientific standpoint. To quote my Prinipal "It was afterall, a science class". To this day there have been no futher moves to have Creatonism or Intelligent Design taught at my old highschool.

My proposition is that they teach both - as examples of improper science. See how people like that!


SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

In that case, neither is the right to free speech. After all, there is nowhere in the constitution where those exact words appear. There are words that mean the same thing, but of course there are words that mean the same thing as "separation of church and state" too.

Nice try. My point is that Creationism can be taught in schools,

That establishes religion.

pray can be said in schools,

Students can already pray in schools - and no one has disputed that right.

'Under God' can and shall always be a part of our pledge of allegiance,

Even though it wasn't there to begin with and was only added to discriminate against atheists - in clear violation of the 14th and first amendments, as it was intentional discrimination and is also, again, establishment of a state religion?

and the 10 Commandments can be put up on any part of government property.

Once again, establishes religion.

<snip>
3.) Why would any sane person want to take down the commandments? If you don't believe in Christianity, just don't look at them.
Because the government cannot be seen to support Christianity over other religions. That and the same reason the government cannot erect swastikas or Star of Davids

Again the Constitution is not only about absolutes.



Class led prayer time is what they are after. Nothing wrong with private time.....



I like classical nude art, why can't Christians simply not look at it.

I like "adult" themed movies; why can't Christians turn the channel or not go into the theater?

I like books, why can't Christians ignore them?

Not that simple is it?

Nude Art:
Do you want your Child looking at Nude art all day?

Adult Themed Movies:

Hmm, children watching porn. That would make for an interesting debate, eh? :p

Books:
Please tell me this one is sarcasm. -_-

Teaching Creationism in Schools does not promote a specific religion. How many others say that Humans and all other animals were created one way or another?

I find it strange that every time intelligent design is mentioned, nearly all opponents to it take very little time to accuse Christianity as the singular cause of such a belief. People say "well Christians want prayer in schools" and "Christians try to sidestep the church\state separation". Fact number one is that many religions teach the concept of intelligent design, not just Christianity.

Fact number two is, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America is separation of church and state even discussed. The idea was first brought about my Jefferson when he was out of the country in a few personal letters. The intent of this was to make a suggestion to those responsible for writing the Constitution, that they would include something that would expressly prohibit the government from interfering with an individual's right to practice religion as they see fit.

Obviously, the founding father's didn't feel it necessary to include in the Constitution, otherwise they would have. They already included enough refrences to God in that particular document and others that their faiths and beliefs are quite easy to distinguish. However, that was their personal faiths, and even the Christian men involved were careful to show that no one may be persecuted for their beliefs, and all are free to worship as they please. THIS DOES NOT MEAN ALL BELIEFS ARE EQUAL. If I choose to worship the pencil sharpener on my desk because it is blue and drink a quart of vodka daily in its honor, I would be allowed to, but that that doesn't mean its right.

To any of those that would quote me here, notice that I have not given preference to any particular religion, but merely implore the masses to use some fucking common sense.

First of all Origin science is not science, its philosophy, and if you believe otherwise your just fooling yourself, do some careful reading from the scientific community.

Secondly,the statement can it proven scientifically is self refuting because the statement "can it be proven scientifically" cannot itself be proven scientifically, some things you just know or know through philosophical reasoning.

Here's an idea, instead debating on a message forum where 90-95 % of the people dont know crap about crap, why not actually read about the topics from the best in the field.

For example, "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, or if you really want to know about ID, read the top authority on ID, William Dembski's "Intelligent Design."

If you want the other Side, Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker."

“Before going further we should not the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”

-Micahel Behe

Nude Art:
Do you want your Child looking at Nude art all day?

Adult Themed Movies:

Hmm, children watching porn. That would make for an interesting debate, eh? :p

Books:
Please tell me this one is sarcasm. -_-

Teaching Creationism in Schools does not promote a specific religion. How many others say that Humans and all other animals were created one way or another?
personally, i would let my kids see nude art at a relatively early age (when i have them).
the post you are replying to does not say or imply that children should be exposed to these things, but that because christians are opposed to these things, these things are harder to access and that your logic should be used to make these more available

Nude Art:
Do you want your Child looking at Nude art all day?
This does nothing to answer the issue at hand. We're not talking about children "looking at nude art all day," we're talking about it existing in the first place which is something some Christians happen to be very opposed to.

Adult Themed Movies:

Hmm, children watching porn. That would make for an interesting debate, eh? :p
Its kind of funny all of this hype that's been built up around such a simple, commonplace, natural act as sex. I can think of about a thousand things worse for a kid than watching porn. It's probably something better reserved for when the child reaches the appropriate age, but there's a certain point where censoring it completely will cause more harm than good. Repression is seldom a good thing.

Books:
Please tell me this one is sarcasm. -_-
We will when you tell us that the Harry Potter protests are sarcasm too.

Teaching Creationism in Schools does not promote a specific religion. How many others say that Humans and all other animals were created one way or another?
Youre thinking of Intelligent Design. Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) specifically countenances the Book of Genesis.

Or any one of many examples, yes. The last time we mixed politics and religion in this country, people got burned at the stake. Do you really think its worth trying again?


Not if the people don't want them to be. Frankly, that tax money is just as much mine as it is yours. It's better to keep religion out of the equation entirely than to spend our entire lives arguing about which one of us is right and who deserves the granite pedestal inscribed with our moral axioms. I might want "I swear my my life and my love of it that I will never live my life for another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" inscribed in big-ass letters over some various government office, but I'm not going to say it can and shall be, just because me and some other people might want it.

Of course the commandments can be put up in a government building. And sane people can take them down.


No surprise there. Most of what the supreme court says is bullshit.

Good points, but I would like to add one thing: if you seperate church from state, the church goes on to engage in benign, and sometimes benificial, activites, while the state continues to be a detriment to society. Church and state together make an unpleasant combination, but it seems that the most dangerous of the two is the state, since, as I said, it will harm people regardless of whether or not it is linked with the church. The state will start wars, collect taxes and pass intrusive laws whether or not seperation of church and state is enforced, whereas the church can only really do those sorts of things when it is working in tandem with the state. Next time you hear "seperation of church and state", instead of thinking of it as a way of protecting the state from being corrupted by the church, think of it as a way of protecting the church from being corrupted by the state.

(I've had my signature for a couple weeks now, but it fits in remarkably well with what I'm trying to say here.)

Well Melkor was right! :D

Oh and thank you Melkor! :)

Nude Art:
Do you want your Child looking at Nude art all day?

Why not? I am guessing you don't have children. I have a 4 year old and she likes being naked. My wife said the other mothers say the same thing.

Children don't have issues with nudety until they are taught to be ashamed about it.



Adult Themed Movies:

Hmm, children watching porn. That would make for an interesting debate, eh? :p

Not really, avid porn viewers which I am not BTW, don't want children watching them either.


Books:
Please tell me this one is sarcasm. -_-

I wish it was. But tell me of all the banned books in this country; what was the Religion fighting for it?

If a society is so easily destroyed by the printed word, it does not deserve to exist.


Teaching Creationism in Schools does not promote a specific religion. How many others say that Humans and all other animals were created one way or another?

But the main promoters of Creationism and Creationism Lite (ID), are Christians.

Creationism and ID are not fighting to become an accepted theory. Their whole purpose is attacking evolution.

The best way to attack evolution is presenting a defendable theory. They can't defend their viewpoint so they attack....

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Cards/ID.jpg

BTW, I think the "Church & State" thing has been deftly dodged, as the proponents of ID have taken great care to name no single entity whom is responsible for the creation of mankind. Time, and the courts will tell.


Unfortunately they've painted themselves into a corner by trying to convince people that Intelligent Design is sound science. They won't be able to teach that in highschool science classes until the constitution is amended to mandate seperation of school and fact :)

This does nothing to answer the issue at hand. We're not talking about children "looking at nude art all day," we're talking about it existing in the first place which is something some Christians happen to be very opposed to.

I actually see no problem with it, so long as it is tasteful.

Its kind of funny all of this hype that's been built up around such a simple, commonplace, natural act as sex. I can think of about a thousand things worse for a kid than watching porn. It's probably something better reserved for when the child reaches the appropriate age, but there's a certain point where censoring it completely will cause more harm than good. Repression is seldom a good thing.

Alright, do you want to have thousands of people having sex everywhere you look, and overwieght nudists walking the streets? Cause that is where that road leads too.

We will when you tell us that the Harry Potter protests are sarcasm too.

By God...No, that was just stupid. Some people need to read the books and realize it is fantasy. But to generalize all books...that is just wrong.

Youre thinking of Intelligent Design. Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) specifically countenances the Book of Genesis.

It is also mentioned in the Koran, and several of the older religions as well.

Unfortunately they've painted themselves into a corner by trying to convince people that Intelligent Design is sound science. They won't be able to teach that in highschool science classes until the constitution is amended to mandate seperation of school and fact :)

:D

My highschool adopted I policy I reccomend American highschools try. It went like this, they invited a number of local religious leaders into our science class and asked them to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design. But there was one catch, they could only teach it from a scientific standpoint. To quote my Prinipal "It was afterall, a science class". To this day there have been no futher moves to have Creatonism or Intelligent Design taught at my old highschool.

Thats like asking a satanist to teach a course on christianity.

America sucks so much lately just because we have fallen from where we began. We bring God back to the forefront instead of catering to others and we might have a chance.

Alright, do you want to have thousands of people having sex everywhere you look, and overwieght nudists walking the streets? Cause that is where that road leads too.
Slippery Slope Fallacy. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html) Argument rejected.

By God...No, that was just stupid. Some people need to read the books and realize it is fantasy. But to generalize all books...that is just wrong.
I agree completely. You seem, at times, to be nominally more 'with it' than most of the religious right I've had the misfortune of meeting. That said, I'm not entirely certain you know to what extent your partners in religion have fought these things. American history is filled with examples of Christians taking $BOOK to some court and screaming about how it should be banned. Almost every enemy of the 1st Amendment in this country has happened to be something of a reactionary.

It is also mentioned in the Koran, and several of the older religions as well.
That's all well and good, but that's showing faovritism to Western religion, now isn't it? The Book of Genesis isn't countenanced in any Eastern religions, so any pretense of 'fair' and 'evenly distributed' favor towards religion has gone down the toilet faster than a baseball-sized choco-chunk from Oprah's ass.

My highschool adopted I policy I reccomend American highschools try. It went like this, they invited a number of local religious leaders into our science class and asked them to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design. But there was one catch, they could only teach it from a scientific standpoint. To quote my Prinipal "It was afterall, a science class". To this day there have been no futher moves to have Creatonism or Intelligent Design taught at my old highschool.

if by scientifically you mean.. using the scientific method.. just how did they go about doing it... neither creationism nor Inteletectual design get past the hypthoesis phase as their not testable...and creationism being far more religiously orient then intelegent design CERINATLY has no place in the science class room.. as it is philisophical at its core... if i were in your school.. i would demand Descartes theory to be taught in sceince and in a sceintific way :rolleyes:

Thats like asking a satanist to teach a course on christianity.

America sucks so much lately just because we have fallen from where we began. We bring God back to the forefront instead of catering to others and we might have a chance.

Where we began? Was that before or after we practically genocided the people that lived here? Was that before or after slavery? Was that before or after womens sufferage? Was that before or after the civil rights movement? Was that before or after the equal rights movement?

For example, "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, or if you really want to know about ID, read the top authority on ID, William Dembski's "Intelligent Design."

Haha... Behe's so full of crap that I find most of his work laughable. The arguement of irreducible complexity basically comes down to "We haven't yet proposed a good model for this, so therefore, God MUST have done it." Sadly, it's the strongest argument he has going for him.

Ironically, there have since been models proposed for Behe's most famous example of IR (the blood-clotting mechanism).

:D Hell no I do think that the entire history on how evil organized Religion has been in the past should be taught. :

Nude Art:
Do you want your Child looking at Nude art all day?

Adult Themed Movies:

Hmm, children watching porn. That would make for an interesting debate, eh? :p

Books:
Please tell me this one is sarcasm. -_-

Teaching Creationism in Schools does not promote a specific religion. How many others say that Humans and all other animals were created one way or another?

Assuming my child wanted to look at nude art all day, or porn for that matter, I would be all for it.

Slippery Slope Fallacy. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html) Argument rejected.

Not really. Start with the movies being in Theaters. Because the movies are in Theaters, they need advertising, right? Now we have adult advertisements appearing at all times of day.

This would go on for some time, till some nudist with a loud mouth gets the idea, 'Stars can show there bodies out in public through posters. Why can't we?' Assuming Congress is still idiotic (it is the opposite of progress after all), Nudists would be allowed to walk free! :D

I agree completely. You seem, at times, to be nominally more 'with it' than most of the religious right I've had the misfortune of meeting. That said, I'm not entirely certain you know to what extent your partners in religion have fought these things. American history is filled with examples of Christians taking $BOOK to some court and screaming about how it should be banned. Almost every enemy of the 1st Amendment in this country has happened to be something of a reactionary.

Oh, you mean the Far Rights! Yeah, I am a Rational Anarchist, so, I am Rational about my religion as well! I just wish people would hurry up and learn my party would kick serious ass. :D

That's all well and good, but that's showing faovritism to Western religion, now isn't it? The Book of Genesis isn't countenanced in any Eastern religions, so any pretense of 'fair' and 'evenly distributed' favor towards religion has gone down the toilet faster than a baseball-sized choco-chunk from Oprah's ass.

Actually, Egyptian, and Jewish describe the beginning of the Universe to be similiar with Genesis.

Actually, Egyptian, and Jewish describe the beginning of the Universe to be similiar with Genesis.
yes, the jews do do this. but we do not try and force people to belive this and nowadays, we agree that it should not be taken literally. much of the religion must be interpreted, and we are trying to interpret genesis in such a way that it allows science to work with it

Not really. Start with the movies being in Theaters. Because the movies are in Theaters, they need advertising, right? Now we have adult advertisements appearing at all times of day.

This would go on for some time, till some nudist with a loud mouth gets the idea, 'Stars can show there bodies out in public through posters. Why can't we?' Assuming Congress is still idiotic (it is the opposite of progress after all), Nudists would be allowed to walk free! :D
You're just going down the same road you started. In order to explain this fallacy any further, I'd need to give you a crash course in symbolic logic, which is a field I'm guessing you have little or no familiarity with.

But yes, the idea that people would be "having sex in the street" as a result of my proposal is a slippery slope of Everest-like proportions.

Oh, you mean the Far Rights! Yeah, I am a Rational Anarchist, so, I am Rational about my religion as well! I just wish people would hurry up and learn my party would kick serious ass. :D
I take it you've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress then? As far as I know, that book coined the term 'rational anarchist.' If you are in fact a 'rational anarchist,' chances are we may get along better than this thread might lead you to believe. I'm an Objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy), which is pretty close.

Actually, Egyptian, and Jewish describe the beginning of the Universe to be similiar with Genesis.
Please don't try to argue this any further. Many religions have vastly differing creation myths, so the favoritism is obvious here. I don't see you rallying for the Wicca creation myth to be countenanced by its own special 'scientific theory,' for example. You can't say it 'doesnt show any favor towards a certain religion' and then weasel out of it by trying to say that every religion's creation myth is exactly like Genesis, which is what they'd have to be for this argument to hold more water than a tenement bathtub.

Frankly, I can't see how any person who has actually read the Bible can be a creationist. In the better translations, there are two different creation myths right next to eachother! One states that God created the world in six days, creating on the sixth day man and woman. In this story they are created at the same time and both in God's image. There is no Eden, God just says to go and be happy in His world. In the second story, the Earth is created in no specific amount of time, and before the plants and animals, God creates Adam. He later creates Eve from Adam's rib, an ancient symbol of equality. Then the whole Eden fiasco happens. Even in the Bibles that try to lump these stories together, it still mentions the Hebrew view of the world: apparently, the earth is a dome with waters above and below it. The waters above make the sky blue and when it rains, it is because God has opened floodgates. Lakes and rivers are caused by water welling up from below the dome. Perhaps we should combine this philosophy with astronomy classes. After all, it is in the Bible, so it can't be wrong!

Anyway, science is science. Religion is religion. Children should be taught religion in religion class and biology in biology class. IF people want to combine them, they may do it in their minds. Speaking as a high school student myself, the last thing I want is to be brainwashed. I'd like to know each side and then make my own decision.

About the nude art: should we put pants on David? Burn Picasso's paintings? Smash Venus De Milo? NO!

And Harry Potter, well, I've had numerous people threaten me with an eternity with Satan and his Hellish instruments of death. I told them to buzz off and perhaps get tested for schizophrenia. I have no problem telling fiction from reality, but they apparently do. I also missed the chapter where Harry worships Beelzebub, what with the celebration of Christmas and all.

For anyone who wants to read up on Evolutionary theories, I highly recommend The Beak of the Finch. 'Tis a rather excellent book.

I take it you've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress then? As far as I know, that book coined the term 'rational anarchist.' If you are in fact a 'rational anarchist,' chances are we may get along better than this thread might lead you to believe. I'm an Objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy), which is pretty close.

Indeed I have. I am a Republican Conservative because they seem in present day society to at least try to get something done, not just talk about it.

Please don't try to argue this any further. Many religions have vastly differing creation myths, so the favoritism is obvious here. I don't see you rallying for the Wicca creation myth to be countenanced by its own special 'scientific theory,' for example. You can't say it 'doesnt show any favor towards a certain religion' and then weasel out of it by trying to say that every religion's creation myth is exactly like Genesis, which is what they'd have to be for this argument to hold more water than a tenement bathtub.

I never said every religion's creation theory was exactly the same, but most are similiar. Give me a few hours, and I will get you proof.

If I choose to worship the pencil sharpener on my desk because it is blue and drink a quart of vodka daily in its honor, I would be allowed to, but that that doesn't mean its right.



I'm sold, I will now convert to your superior religion.
Booze for all that are blue!

And guys, as fun as this is to see the arguments go back and forth, remember arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded. (I'm going to hell for using a joke older then some of the people on this board AND being an insensative jerk! two in one,go me!)

Anyway back to what I was going to say when I read this:
That's a pretty clever way to go about ending that argument. One thing though, did the principle do it on purpose?

(Edit: my typing has gone to crap...)

I never said every religion's creation theory was exactly the same, but most are similiar. Give me a few hours, and I will get you proof.

Because we ARE all on the back of a giant turtle, too, even...

And that turtle was licked from the ice by the giant cosmic cow.

Indeed I have. I am a Republican Conservative because they seem in present day society to at least try to get something done, not just talk about it.



I never said every religion's creation theory was exactly the same, but most are similiar. Give me a few hours, and I will get you proof.

Buddisim, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, confusionism... the list goes on.. none of these have accounts which can be called "similar" to that of gensis. Thats not even going int witch craft and most paganism

I never said every religion's creation theory was exactly the same, but most are similiar. Give me a few hours, and I will get you proof.
Let me remind you that you stated earlier in the thread that Creationism doesn't show any favoritism towards any specific religion. That means, in order to prove that said 'theory' is all inclusive, you have to find prominent similarities between Genesis and all other creation myths in order to justify your claim of no favoritism. Even if you want to borrow a few lines of some creation myth while taking the rest out of context, you're still showing favoritism by using 100% of Bible canon to justify Creationism as opposed to 1% of, say, Aradia: Gospel of the Witches.

EDIT: Short version-- Most isn't good enough. You said No favoritism.

Where did I make that mistake?! :eek:

I know for a fact that that is incorrect, and apologize for it. I currently have 4 other prominent religions of there time that come up with close matches to Judeao-Christian Genesis. They are Egyptian (Upper Kingdom), Jewish 1st version of Genesis, Chinese, and Babylonian (From what I can make out).

So, yeah. Five prominent religions containing similiar Creation stories. That isn't showing favoritism, is it?

And do you want links to my sources as well?

Pardon me for merely skimming most of the thread so far, but I'm not really aiming to join the debate so much as to provide an example (I think an excellent one) of how a biology prof of mine handled this. Oh yeah, I should mention I'm a creationist and fairly conservative in my personal beliefs.

In my first year biology class at college, my prof started the semester by saying that there are two major ideas concerning the origin and development of life - creationism (one or more versions) and evolution by natural selection. He said that he was an evolutionist, but that it was not his goal to persuade creationists to abandon their beliefs. Creationism, he said, might be the correct idea, but it is impossible to test scientifically because it only happened once (if it happened that way, of course); so, he would be teaching us the evidences that led to the theory of evolution as the prominent scientific theory and let us come to our own conclusions. He didn't mention creationism again after that, and I don't think he really needed to.

So, I'm not unaware of the reasoning and evidences behind the idea of evolution by natural selection - indeed, it seems a very reasonable theory from what I have read and learned - but I choose to believe otherwise for my own reasons.

Note that his belief differed from mine, but I felt that I was still respected (he didn't know I was a creationist), and I also respected him. He didn't say "any creationist is a freaking moron", and I didn't accuse him of trying to "lead the class to hell" or something like that.

I'm not trying to flame or anything like that, so I hope I'm not coming across that way. I just think that this wouldn't be such a big issue if each side were given more respect by the other. I think calm, rational discussion is much better than insults, since people shut off their ears to the latter, rendering the exercise more or less pointless.

Pardon me for merely skimming most of the thread so far, but I'm not really aiming to join the debate so much as to provide an example (I think an excellent one) of how a biology prof of mine handled this. Oh yeah, I should mention I'm a creationist and fairly conservative in my personal beliefs.

In my first year biology class at college, my prof started the semester by saying that there are two major ideas concerning the origin and development of life - creationism (one or more versions) and evolution by natural selection. He said that he was an evolutionist, but that it was not his goal to persuade creationists to abandon their beliefs. Creationism, he said, might be the correct idea, but it is impossible to test scientifically because it only happened once (if it happened that way, of course); so, he would be teaching us the evidences that led to the theory of evolution as the prominent scientific theory and let us come to our own conclusions. He didn't mention creationism again after that, and I don't think he really needed to.

So, I'm not unaware of the reasoning and evidences behind the idea of evolution by natural selection - indeed, it seems a very reasonable theory from what I have read and learned - but I choose to believe otherwise for my own reasons.

Note that his belief differed from mine, but I felt that I was still respected (he didn't know I was a creationist), and I also respected him. He didn't say "any creationist is a freaking moron", and I didn't accuse him of trying to "lead the class to hell" or something like that.

I'm not trying to flame or anything like that, so I hope I'm not coming across that way. I just think that this wouldn't be such a big issue if each side were given more respect by the other. I think calm, rational discussion is much better than insults, since people shut off their ears to the latter, rendering the exercise more or less pointless.
Eloquent, well formed & intelligent. One of the best first posts I've read in a long time. Welcome to NationStates.

Where did I make that mistake?! :eek:

I know for a fact that that is incorrect, and apologize for it. I currently have 4 other prominent religions of there time that come up with close matches to Judeao-Christian Genesis. They are Egyptian (Upper Kingdom), Jewish 1st version of Genesis, Chinese, and Babylonian (From what I can make out).

So, yeah. Five prominent religions containing similiar Creation stories. That isn't showing favoritism, is it?

And do you want links to my sources as well?You need to consider Norse, Greek, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, and a whole lot of other creation mythology...
Now explain to me how you plan to compromise this:
In the begining there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared.
Then Erebus slept with Night, who gave birth to Ether, the heavenly light, and to Day the earthly light. Then Night alone produced Doom, Fate, Death, Sleep, Dreams, Nemesis, and others that come to man out of darkness.

Meanwhile Gaea alone gave birth to Uranus, the heavens. Uranus became Gaea's mate covering her on all sides. Together they produced the three Cyclopes, the three Hecatoncheires, and twelve Titans.

However, Uranus was a bad father and husband. He hated the Hecatoncheires. He imprisoned them by pushing them into the hidden places of the earth, Gaea's womb. This angered Gaea and she ploted against Uranus. She made a flint sickle and tried to get her children to attack Uranus. All were too afraid except, the youngest Titan, Cronus.

Gaea and Cronus set up an ambush of Uranus as he lay with Gaea at night. Cronus grabed his father and castrated him, with the stone sickle, throwing the severed genitales into the ocean. The fate of Uranus is not clear. He either died, withdrew from the earth, or exiled himself to Italy. As he departed he promised that Cronus and the Titans would be punished. From his spilt blood came the Giants, the Ash Tree Nymphs, and the Erinnyes. From the sea foam where his genitales fell came Aphrodite.(SOURCE (http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.html))
with Genesis.

That is not in the constitution. Therefore, it does not apply.

Actually, a long series of unreversed Superior Court precedents say that it is and that it does.

You need to consider Norse, Greek, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, and a whole lot of other creation mythology...
Now explain to me how you plan to compromise this:
(SOURCE (http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.html))
with Genesis.

Hmmm...Alright. The first paragraph is pretty easy.

In the begining there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared.

Then Erebus slept with Night, who gave birth to Ether, the heavenly light, and to Day the earthly light. Then Night alone produced Doom, Fate, Death, Sleep, Dreams, Nemesis, and others that come to man out of darkness.

Meanwhile Gaea alone gave birth to Uranus, the heavens. Uranus became Gaea's mate covering her on all sides. Together they produced the three Cyclopes, the three Hecatoncheires, and twelve Titans.

'1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. '

These match pretty closely, once you take out the polytheism from the greek creation myth.

However, they only match up to a point, due to the differences between polythesism and monotheism. So, the creation stories have been proven similiar up to a point, and upon researching further into the Greek Creation Myth, the rest not displayed is a good story.

Actually, a long series of unreversed Superior Court precedents say that it is and that it does.

You are talking about the newest set of supreme court justices, who seem to enjoy making laws, correct?

These match pretty closely, once you take out the polytheism from the greek creation myth.

However, they only match up to a point, due to the differences between polythesism and monotheism. So, the creation stories have been proven similiar up to a point, and upon researching further into the Greek Creation Myth, the rest not displayed is a good story.Similar to a point. So I assume you'd have nothing against teaching Greek mythological creation with Christianity being mentioned as having a similar creation story?

Similar to a point. So I assume you'd have nothing against teaching Greek mythological creation with Christianity being mentioned as having a similar creation story?

No problems with that. My only thing would be to mention that the Greek Creation Myth is Polytheism, the belief in multiple Gods. Thus the resemblance to more of a story, while the Judeao-Christian Creation Myth involves monotheism, the belief in one God. I would also like to see a theo-history class that discusses the differences between the histories of each culture, and the effect of the different religious beliefs on the culture at the time.

Thus the resemblance to more of a story...Why that?

Let me get it off the site...

Cronus became the next ruler. He imprisoned the Cyclopes and the Hecatoncheires in Tartarus. He married his sister Rhea, under his rule the Titans had many offspring. He ruled for many ages. However, Gaea and Uranus both had prophesied that he would be overthrown by a son. To avoid this Cronus swallowed each of his children as they were born. Rhea was angry at the treatment of the children and ploted against Cronus. When it came time to give birth to her sixth child, Rhea hid herself, then she left the child to be raised by nymphs. To concel her act she wrapped a stone in swaddling cloths and passed it off as the baby to Cronus, who swallowed it.

This child was Zeus. He grew into a handsome youth on Crete. He consulted Metis on how to defeat Cronus. She prepaired a drink for Cronus design to make him vomit up the other children. Rhea convinced Cronus to accept his son and Zeus was allowed to return to Mount Olympus as Cronus's cupbearer. This gave Zeus the opertunity to slip Cronus the specially prepaired drink. This worked as planned and the other five children were vomitted up. Being gods they were unharmed. They were thankful to Zeus and made him their leader.

Cronus was yet to be defeated. He and the Titans, except Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Oceanus, fought to retain their power. Atlas became their leader in battle and it looked for some time as though they would win and put the young gods down. However, Zeus was cunning. He went down to Tartarus and freed the Cyclopes and the Hecatoncheires. Prometheus joined Zeus as well. He returned to battle with his new allies. The Cyclopes provided Zeus with lighting bolts for weapons. The Hecatoncheires he set in ambush armed with boulders. With the time right, Zeus retreated drawing the Titans into the Hecatoncheires's ambush. The Hecatoncheires rained down hundreds of boulders with such a fury the Titans thought the mountains were falling on them. They broke and ran giving Zeus victory.

Zeus exiled the Titans who had fought against him into Tartarus. Except for Atlas, who was singled out for the special punishment of holding the world on his shoulders.

However, even after this victory Zeus was not safe. Gaea angry that her children had been imprisoned gave birth to a last offspring, Typhoeus. Typhoeus was so fearsome that most of the gods fled. However, Zeus faced the monster and flinging his lighting bolts was able to kill it. Typhoeus was burried under Mount Etna in Sicily.

Much later a final challenge to Zeus rule was made by the Giants. They went so far as to attempt to invade Mount Olympus, piling mountain upon mountain in an effort to reach the top. But, the gods had grown strong and with the help of Heracles the Giants were subdued or killed.

Now this doesn't go into as great detail as I have seen, but it does well. Anyway, the reason it resembles a story has partially to do with many histories at the time were told through speaking. And nothing keeps an audiences attention like a good story.

Now this doesn't go into as great detail as I have seen, but it does well. Anyway, the reason it resembles a story has partially to do with many histories at the time were told through speaking. And nothing keeps an audiences attention like a good story.

Same goes for a lot in the OT (which contains Genesis and Exodus, the jewish and thus christian story of creation. I included Exodus because christianity was born out of jewish religion, so it's revelent for both). The story of the flood, the Exodus (Mozes did quite some impressive magic tricks with the help of god there, and the great disasters and defeat of the Egyptian army make quite a story too), the wanderings in the desert (again, a lot of colorful divine intervention) and the conquering of the Promised Lands (again, with god's divine intervention).
The books Genesis and Exodus are just as much story-telling as Greek, Egyptian, Norse or Hindu mythology.
What then, makes Christian creation and early history writings 'better' or 'less of a story' than those others?
And if we don't teach older creation theories because they where discarded, why should we teach Creationism?
I've nothing against teaching ID or Creationism, as long as it stays out of science

You are talking about the newest set of supreme court justices, who seem to enjoy making laws, correct?

The Judiciary does not make laws, it interprets them. If the Supreme Court says the Constitution means something, then it means exactly that. The Separation of Church and State is a doctrine enshrined in the Constitution.

I asked a woman to prove to me god exists and she smiled smugly and replied that if i could prove that oxygen exists she would prove god exists. Well I was taken aback by this clever reply.

So i choked her and proved my argument.

I asked a woman to prove to me god exists and she smiled smugly and replied that if i could prove that oxygen exists she would prove god exists. Well I was taken aback by this clever reply.

So i choked her and proved my argument.
It would have been easier to refer her to Lavoisier. That proof is just about the first that happened in the science of chemistry.

My highschool adopted I policy I reccomend American highschools try. It went like this, they invited a number of local religious leaders into our science class and asked them to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design. But there was one catch, they could only teach it from a scientific standpoint. To quote my Prinipal "It was afterall, a science class". To this day there have been no futher moves to have Creatonism or Intelligent Design taught at my old highschool.
"Reverse psychology" for religionists? LOL!

I asked a woman to prove to me god exists and she smiled smugly and replied that if i could prove that oxygen exists she would prove god exists. Well I was taken aback by this clever reply.

So i choked her and proved my argument.

HA!
funny

Though I believe in both Creationism, I say teach Evolution in schools.

Why? Because it just sounds more scientifically smarter. Imo, can't prove really anything unless you lived that long to see it. Who knows, when God says he created the world in 6 days, he meant 6 billion years.

I personally don't think whether they teach creationism or evolutionism really matter in schools. People would eventually believe what they want whether they teach it in schools or not. And people are simply being idiots for making this trivial matter important.

Don't people know what they teach at school isn't always right?

Like I still believe America doesn't exist and if you sail across the ocean you'll fall to your DOOM! :D

"Reverse psychology" for religionists? LOL!

Religious subjects deserve teaching, but not in a science class! Such subjects should be electives, much like foreign languages tend to be.

Keep in mind that I'm a Christian, and believe this. There is a place for discussion, however science classes are NOT it. Science classes are supposed to teach SCIENCE, after all, isn't that what they're called.

(I'm a rare sould who believes that science DOES have a role to play despite being a firm Christian believer).

How can intelligent design be taught? Doesn't it leave infinite possibilities? The world could have been intelligently designed yesterday and we've been given false memories. The intelligent designer could have designed evolution and let nature take its course. The intelligent designer could be intelligent, but not all knowing, and maybe made some mistakes. Anything at all could have happened under ID, making it impossible to teach other than saying maybe someone or something made the world.

Alright, do you want to have thousands of people having sex everywhere you look, and overwieght nudists walking the streets? Cause that is where that road leads too.



http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Might want to pay attention to why that is a fallacy

Thats like asking a satanist to teach a course on christianity.

America sucks so much lately just because we have fallen from where we began. We bring God back to the forefront instead of catering to others and we might have a chance.
And I bet you they could do better at it then a christian doing the reverse (generaly)

In fact I know quite a few atheists that could teach you and me a few things about the text itself better then your local paster can

I don't want the schools to teach ID. It isn't science, it shouldn't be taught by people who don't believe/ understand it. They would just screw it up.much like my teacher who was a Christian screwed up teaching me evolution, yeah"we all came from monkeys and there is no missing link so all the science goes down the toilet"

Do I think that parents shouldn't offer ID? nope
Do I think that there should be a religion class in highschool that teaches it? nope. again they would just screw it up.

And I bet you they could do better at it then a christian doing the reverse (generaly)

In fact I know quite a few atheists that could teach you and me a few things about the text itself better then your local paster can

Good point. Atheists tend to understand more about "sacred texts" than the average religious person. Perhaps they can't quote, but many atheists have studied several religious texts before becoming atheists, and therefore see the similarities and dissimilarities in all of them.

You are talking about the newest set of supreme court justices, who seem to enjoy making laws, correct?

No, sorry, the Supreme Court has been upholding the 1st Amendment (not always very well, but precedent has always been there) since the Founding Fathers were still alive.